Experiments in Living Christianity and the Liberal Democrat Party

Stephen Backhouse About the author Copyright © 2010 by The British and Foreign Dr Stephen Backhouse is the Tutor in Bible Society and Stephen Backhouse Social and Political Theology for St Mellitus The moral rights of the author have been College, London and has taught at the asserted. universities of McGill and Oxford. He All rights reserved. No part of this publication is the author of the Compact Guide to may be reproduced, stored or transmitted Christian History (Lion, forthcoming 2011) in any form or by any means, electronic or and Kierkegaard’s Critique of Christian mechanical, including photocopying, recording, Nationalism (OUP, forthcoming 2011). or any information storage and retrieval system, Acknowledgements without permission in writing from the copyright owner. This book is sold subject to the condition The author wishes to acknowledge the that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, many people who helped along the way be lent, re-sold, hired out or otherwise circulated during this project. Special thanks are due without the copyright holder’s prior consent in to Clare Backhouse, Zoe Dixon, Christopher any form of binding or cover other than that in Graham, Richard Grayson, Kate Heywood, which this is published and without a similar Jo Latham, Graham Lippiatt, Mike Lloyd, condition including this condition being imposed Paul Marshall, Nick Spencer, Grahame on the subsequent publisher. Tomlin and MP. The author greatly appreciates their advice, insights, Unless otherwise indicated Scripture quotations comments and criticisms. Any errors that are taken from The Holy Bible, English Standard remain are the author’s own. Version® (ESV®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

ISBN 978-0-564-04756-7

This edition published in 2010 by The British and Foreign Bible Society Typeset by Bible Society Resources Ltd Design by CatchyMonkey Design Printed in the UK

Bible Society Stonehill Green, Westlea, Swindon SN5 7DG Charity Registration no. 232759 Visit biblesociety.org.uk Contents

Series Foreword 1 Introduction 4 Overview 6 Notes 7 Part 1: History 8 The Liberal tradition 9 Emancipation 9 Reform 10 Corn Laws 10 Liberals at last 11 J.S. Mill 12 W.E. Gladstone 12 Continuing Gladstonian influence 23 A new 23 A party divided? 25 Notes 27 Part II: Liberty 29 Something from nothing 30 Christ-ians not God-ians 31 Freedom for 33 Freedom from 33 Fantastical self-authorship 36 Impersonal law 38 Positive and negative freedom 39 Notes 41 Part III: The Individual 42 Cogs and Kings 43 The Christian individual 44 The opposite of faith 45 Good and bad neighbours 47 Invention of the person 49 Humanistic liberalism and human rights 51 Inhuman humanism 52 Notes 54 Part IV: Equality 56 Socio-economic equality 57 Tolerance and equality 59 Christian equality 62 Christianity pro Liberalism 64 Christianity contra Liberalism 64 Public vs. private 67 Experimental Liberalism 70 Being the Church 72 Notes 73 Conclusion 76 Bibliography 80 Websites 82 Series foreword

The Bible speaks to politics because God is Presently, the public role of religion in the interested in government – the right public UK is both expanding and deepening. At ordering of our relational priorities. But the same time, it is attracting fierce criticism what about party politics? Political parties from increasingly assertive secularists. This are often tribal. Commanding our loyalty, makes the need for fresh insight on how they can often be places that both express Christianity relates to British parties an and suppress religious identity. Whether urgent priority. we like it or not, political parties dominate politics in the UK and are set to do so The first phase of the project concentrates for the foreseeable future. As collegiate on the three largest parties – Conservative, enterprises, they have traditionally provided Labour, and Liberal Democrat – but our a political focus for joining broad sets of hope is that a later phase will engage other ideas around a unifying theme or common parties as well, and from all four nations vision for society. In recent years, as the of the UK. This phase has developed with inspiration of great political ideals has the invaluable help of the three Christian waned, they have become more complex party political groups within the parties and even contradictory vehicles for concerned – the Conservative Christian representation. This offers new challenges Fellowship (CCF), the Christian Socialist and opportunities for Christian engagement Movement (CSM) and the Liberal Democrat in politics. Christian Forum (LDCF). Special thanks are due to Elizabeth Berridge (CCF), Andy This is one of three publications – extended Flannagan (CSM), and Zoe Dixon (LCDF). essays – representing the first phase of the We are immensely grateful for their Partisan project – a developing resource enthusiasm for the project, for their advice on Christianity and British political parties as it took shape, and for their assistance in initiated and funded by the Bible Society, disseminating these first fruits. We should and produced and delivered in partnership make it clear, however, that while these with the Kirby Laing Institute for Christian three organisations generously offered Ethics (KLICE). The aim of the project is to their moral and practical support for the stimulate new and robust Christian political preparation of these essays, the opinions reflection within British political parties. It expressed in them are the authors’ alone has been launched at a paradoxical time. and do not represent the official stances

1 Experiments in Living Series foreword

of the organisations concerned nor of the Our hope is that the Partisan project parties to which they are affiliated (nor of will bring fresh theological depth, self- the project’s two institutional sponsors). awareness, and critical potential to conversations already under way about the These essays are offered as a part of a contribution of Christian faith to British conversation that has been going on party politics. The essays leave no doubt for many years among party political that Christianity has made notable – at Christians. As ‘critical friends’ of perhaps even decisive – contributions parties, the authors were each asked to to the thinking and practice of the parties. address the role of Christianity within At the same time, they proceed from the them. We commissioned Joshua Hordern, recognition that today these contributions Paul Bickley and Stephen Backhouse to are not only ignored by many, but also often engage – appreciatively but frankly – with resisted or derided by some voices within the history, theology and broad policy the parties. Among the latter are those orientations of the party traditions to which who still subscribe to the discredited – yet they were assigned. We invited them to surprisingly tenacious – social-scientific identify the characteristic historical and myth that modernisation necessarily (and contemporary ‘gifts’ given by the Christian rightly) brings with it the privatisation of faith to the party tradition in question, religion and the secularisation of the public but also to employ insights from Christian square. The Partisan project sets itself political theology to confront the party’s squarely against that myth and seeks to vulnerabilities or Achilles’ heels where they underline the legitimacy of a wide variety found them. Within those broad parameters of faith-based contributions to political the authors were given freedom to develop debate, within an open democratic forum in their arguments as they saw fit, with their which robust political parties will continue own preferred emphases, and in their own to play an indispensable role. distinctive idioms. Importantly, the books seek to be discursive, not definitive. Each No one involved in the project – least of offers a particular (theological) reading of all the authors themselves – pretends that the history and contemporary condition of these essays are anything more than one the political party concerned, in recognition modest contribution to a debate that needs that there are, of course, other equally to take place at many levels and to involve legitimate and necessary readings. We a wide range of participants – and not are very grateful to the authors for the only Christians. Yet, given the widespread intelligence and dedication with which they popular disillusionment with and rose to the demanding challenges of our disengagement from party politics – indeed commission. from the whole political process – in recent 2 Experiments in Living Series foreword

years, the ‘convictional health’ of parties is of vital concern for our entire parliamentary democracy.

Everyone involved in this project would share the conviction that, as an ancient prophet warned another nation in crisis, ‘where there is no vision, the people perish’ ccfwebsite.com (Proverbs 29.18, AV). We hope that these essays stimulate new thinking about the urgent need for, and the desirable contents of, new political visions shaped by a primary Christian identity and biblical worldview. thecsm.org.uk We hope too that they will offer food for the journey for those already working within British political parties, and inspire others to consider entering the party political fray themselves as a constructive, honourable and missional arena of authentic Christian citizenship – for the common good of the ldcf.net whole nation.

David Landrum (Senior Parliamentary Officer, Bible Society) biblesociety.org.uk

Jonathan Chaplin (Director, KLICE) klice.co.uk

3 Introduction

Introduction

The Liberal Democrats are the smallest Liberal Democrats has been demonstrated party with the biggest ideas. Indeed, it in recent history with the rise of the party’s is the very bigness of their central idea fortunes during the 2010 general election. – liberalism – that perhaps explains the Here the party was able to position itself smallness of the party. If you value liberty as the choice for political reform. Voters, of conscience and freedom of association, evidently tired of the old Conservative- if you think individuals should not be Labour dichotomy, were reluctant to give cowed by groups, if you value tolerance either one of these parties an outright and fairness then you are, in some very majority. In the ensuing hung parliament, important ways, a liberal, even if you also the Liberals emerged as the party that the vote Tory, or Labour, or UKIP, or Green. others had to court. After almost a week of Liberalism is pervasive throughout our intense negotiation full of many carrots and society, to the extent that no one political a few sticks, the Liberal Democrats agreed party can truly be said to own it any more. 1 to an alliance with the Conservatives to form the new Government. While they The Liberal Democrats, then, are faced remain a small party, no one can say that with the problem of carrying the torch for the Liberal Democrats are insignificant. a set of ideas with which everyone already implicitly agrees. Thus it is a common The rapidly changing fortune of the refrain amongst Liberal Democrats that Liberal Democrats provides a clue as to the other main parties routinely steal their how this present work will unfold. At the policies. For the same reason it is an equally commencement of writing this essay, the common refrain amongst the electorate Liberal Democrats were a marginal party, that no one really knows what the Liberal rarely mentioned in the media except as Democrats stand for. Within the party, the butt of political satirists’ jokes. Their too, there is disagreement as to how their leader, , was largely unknown to liberalism works itself out differently from the wider electorate, usually heard (if he the ‘liberalism’ of the left or of the right. was heard at all) arguing for more attention to be paid to his party. , the And yet, the Liberal Democrats are different Liberal Democrat Shadow Chancellor, from the other parties, and they do provide was a critic arguing from the outside. Of a credible alternative. The credibility of the its few prominent MPs, Mark Oaten and

4 Introduction

Lembit Opik were primarily known for more forms of Christianity than there are their interesting private lives, and Evan of liberalism, and thus to speak of ‘the’ Harris was either celebrated or reviled Christian approach is to invite even more as an outspoken secularist and atheist complication than it would do to speak campaigner. Within weeks, none of these of ‘the’ liberals. That being said, while three were MPs, the Liberal Democrats our approach clearly betrays Protestant, became part of government, Vince Cable Anglo-Saxon influences, the following became Secretary of State for Business and theological analysis draws from strong lines Nick Clegg was appointed Deputy Prime of Christian tradition that run broader and Minister. deeper than any one school (or church!) of thought. Liberalism, and the party which It will not do to write an examination takes its name, has a history inextricable of specific Liberal Democrat policies or from certain forms of Christianity. We particular Liberal Democrat politicians. The will examine the historical roots of key ground is constantly shifting and will shift Christian groups and Christian leaders on even more as the necessary compromises of Liberalism in Britain. The High Anglicanism Government work their course. Instead, the of Gladstone and the Nonconformist present piece starts from the assumption conscience of the disestablishmentarians that, while the actual role of the party has shaped liberalism and the Liberal and its members will inevitably change, Democrats in ways whose contours can the ideological importance of the party still be seen today. In the present age, for Parliament will remain. Furthermore, the Liberal Party has acquired something the ideals of the Liberal Democrats and of a reputation as a haven for secular the flavour of their liberalism will make humanists. Yet while it is true that leading their presence known in our already anti-religious campaigners such as Evan ‘liberal’ society. For this reason, we are Harris and Richard Dawkins are Liberal more interested in looking at liberalism Democrats, some of the nation’s most itself, and the ways that Liberal Democrats articulate Christian politicians (such as historically have understood it than we are Baroness Shirley Willams, , in addressing party manifestos past and Steve Webb and amongst others) present. also call the party home. Christians occupy key ideological and leadership positions Above all, however, this piece is a Christian within the party, and indeed, Christians examination of liberalism. Compared to constitute a high proportion of Liberal party the more than two thousand years of membership.2 Liberalism provides a place for history, thought and practice of Christianity, the less religiously sure as well. Nick Clegg, liberalism is a mere adolescent. There are a self-confessed agnostic who nevertheless 5 Experiments in Living Introduction

attends church regularly and is raising his and some of his. Gladstonian Christianity children as Catholic3, probably represents a and Nonconformist religion impacted not wider spread of society than do the fearful only Liberalism but also the wider British and angry fundamentalists found on either cultural-political landscape. We consider side of the religion/anti-religion divide. in particular the so-called ‘Nonconformist conscience’ and the vexed matter of These connections are no accident, for disestablishment. The essay then briefly liberalism and Christianity are bedfellows, traces the implications of this Christian albeit at times uneasy ones. The impulse influence through the various iterations of that attracts a certain sort of Christian to liberalism and the Liberal party, up to and the party is similar to that which attracts including the of the present a certain sort of secularist. The passion for day Liberal Democrats. social justice that drives the Christian is akin to that of the humanist human rights The historical part is, in fact, more a campaigner. The ‘free-thinking’ atheist and history of the development of certain key the Nonconformist Churchman share a ideas than it is a history of persons and common cause. Today it is liberal cultures events. The focus on ideas continues in that best provide the space for the social the subsequent three parts. Liberalism is experiment that is Christianity to flourish. above all, a political philosophy of liberty In turn, historically it was Christian thought or freedom. Part Two thus looks at the role which originally nurtured liberalism. of ‘freedom’ in Christian thought and its Liberalism sprang from Christianity and relationship to the secular variations of its care for the liberty of individual human the same. There are two main strands of beings is a product of revolutionary ‘freedom’ in operation, namely a sense of seeds sown by the earliest Christians two freedom from all constraints and a sense thousand years ago. that true freedom means freedom to flourish in a particular way. These two freedoms do Overview not always coincide. The essay suggests The present essay is divided into four parts. some of the main points of congruence and Part One deals with the Christian influences tension between these senses of freedom, lying at the roots of British liberalism as well as considering how Christian liberty and the Liberal party. The essay does not fits within the wider liberal milieu. pretend towards an exhaustive historical account. Instead, after a brief overview of Liberty means nothing if it does not apply to Liberal beginnings, we focus on nineteenth the real lives of actual persons. What is more, century Nonconformity and some of its the category of personhood is as important concerns, and on William Ewart Gladstone for Christian theology as it is for liberalism. 6 Experiments in Living Introduction

For this reason, Part Three takes a close look groups as ‘experiments in living’ deserving at the development of the idea and value of of equal opportunity to sink or swim the ‘individual’, and at the Christian roots recommends itself to modern Christians of ‘human rights’. In the present age, of living as minorities within liberalism – and course, much of the rhetoric of personhood as Liberals. and human rights makes no reference to Christianity. Part Three concludes by It is to the history of Christianity in the questioning the track record and ability of Liberal party, and then a closer study of purely humanist liberalism in upholding and the three key ideas driving Christianity and maintaining liberal human rights. Liberalism that we now turn.

Finally, Part Four looks at the component Notes of equality that is so important to both Christianity and liberalism. The essay 1 It is worth noting here that there is a difference between theological liberalism and political liberalism, considers the place of equality and the the focus of our present study. As a general rule, role of fairness in modern liberal discourse ‘theological liberalism’ is the name for the school as well as Christian theology and ethics. of thought that takes an historical-critical view Liberals – Christian and secular – often of the development of the Scriptures and Church practice. It tends towards agnosticism or rejection of stress the importance of providing fairness the supernatural claims of Christian doctrine while in opportunities rather than outcomes. All retaining core principles of Christian ethics and persons should be equally free to pursue community. Both theologically liberal and traditional Christians can be attracted to political liberalism, and their path apart from coercion – be it indeed are found within the Liberal Democrat party. religious, political or cultural. Thus another Certainly, the politically liberal values of fairness, prime component of equality is tolerance. equality, social justice and personal responsibility would find a home with those who tend towards a Liberal society requires tolerance, yet literal reading of Biblical injunctions no less than their it is unsure how to go about tolerating theologically liberal brethren. individuals and groups who depart from the 2 A major independent survey in 1999 revealed a norm, especially when it comes to religion. majority of party members (65%) consider themselves The liberal solution of tolerating religion to be religious. Of these, 70% are C of E, 15 % only so long as it stays in a supposed Methodist, 11 % Roman Catholic. In addition, these party members are educated and articulate. ‘Of ‘private’ sphere is now commonplace. We the three main parties, the Liberal Democrats are challenge this approach as politically and the most highly educated.’ 40% Liberal Democrats theologically incoherent. Instead, there are have a degree compared to 30% Labour and 19% Conservative. Paul Whiteley, Parick Seyd and Anthony ample resources within liberalism that allow Billinghurst, Third Force Politics: Liberal Democrats at for tolerating the existence of divergent the Grassroots, Oxford University Press: 2006, 23–25. factions sharing one public space. The 3 Interview with Nick Clegg, Telegraph Magazine, 10 traditional liberal impulse towards seeing April 2010, 27. 7 Part I: History

Part I: History

The Liberal party has gone through a number of iterations since its inception in the nineteenth century.1 At all stages Christians and their concerns have played central roles in shaping liberal policy. Christianity continues to influence the modern Liberal Democrats, but it is especially in the early stages of the party that the Christian contours of Liberalism are most clearly seen. Christianity is in the DNA of British Liberalism – it is impossible to tell the story of the Liberal politics without running into Liberal Christians at every turn.

The tradition of moral crusading, radical is as important as the party itself. 3 Indeed, dissent and opposition to institutionalised it is the very preservation of the term privilege runs deep and strong in British ‘liberal’ that serves as a testament to the history, but it would not coalesce into success of the ideas, even if the parties liberalism until the nineteenth century. using the name experience fluctuation in The word ‘liberal’ appeared in Spanish popularity and power. Political historian and French discourse during the first Michael Steed thinks that the strength decade of the century. It referred to those of the liberal tradition is what sustained who agitated for constitutional reform, supporters through the many lean years sovereignty and individual freedoms. In when political Liberals had no hope of Britain the term was originally used as a forming a government. ‘The Liberal Party’s term of abuse, as when Robert Southey survival in adversity is a tribute to its own attacked ‘British Liberales’ in 1816.2 belief that what it stood for was important, Eventually, however, the label became more distinctive and attractive.’4 If the ideas had salubrious as adherents began to own the not been strong – and strongly held – then ideas. By 1842 the radical campaigner the name ‘Liberal’ would not have survived Richard Cobden was able to declare both to furnish the Liberal Democrats. The Liberal the Conservative Robert Peel and the Whig Democrats are not the only political party Lord John Russell ‘liberals’ and mean it as a to hold to liberal ideas, however, they are compliment. the party with the strongest claim to the label, and are arguably the best preservers When considering Liberal history, tracing of the liberal tradition. the development of the idea of liberalism

8 Part I: History

The Liberal tradition point, it was Nonconformist Christians What constitutes this tradition? The most opposed to the monopoly of power and common and consistent theme of liberalism influence of the Established Anglican is that of liberty: freedom for individuals Church that provided the bedrock and and for groups.5 Asked why he was a liberal, impetus for the most distinguishing features in 1936 the political scientist Ernest Barker of the early Liberal Party. answered that it was because liberalism ‘has been a continuous force in English Emancipation history, acting for causes I believed to be Before considering the story of the Liberal good – free churches, free parliaments, free Party, we need to briefly look at the pre- trade and the freedom of labour.’6 It is often liberal political and religious context from assumed that the Liberals are a party of the which Liberalism sprang. middle or the centre. Yet many Liberals draw the spectrum differently, with liberalism on By the 1830s the two traditional blocs one side and totalitarianism of any kind on of political affiliation were disintegrating the other. It is the affirmation of ‘freedom’ and new ideological alliances were being which has given the Liberals a different formed. An embryonic liberalism was approach to traditional ‘left’ or ‘right’ diffused throughout the political system; it politics, the extremes of either of which are would take a series of far-reaching reforms communism or fascism. to parliament and public life to shake up both the progressive Whigs and the In the history of the United Kingdom, conservative Tories and set the stage for a often the hegemonic tendencies against new, Liberal party. which ‘liberals’ fought were expressed in the institutions of the aristocracy and the One crucial issue (from 1829) was the established Church. Thus it is true that Christian matter of Catholic Emancipation. liberalism has its roots in opposition to The nature of Established Protestant Christian authoritarianism. Significantly, Anglicanism meant that British Catholics however, it is Christian opposition to were barred from participating in key Christian authoritarianism that forms the areas of public life. Whigs and some Tory backbone of the liberal tradition. So for politicians saw the need for allowing example, Steed and others can trace the emancipation. When Prime Minister thread of British liberalism through Milton, Wellington and Robert Peel (both Tories) Cromwell and the Puritans. Behind these carried emancipation through with the dissenters lie the Lollards – followers of support of the Whig opposition, they the fourteenth century radical English angered many of the Tory faithful. theologian John Wycliffe.7 Closer to the 9 Experiments in Living Part I: History

The resulting coalition between Tories and particularly affecting those areas that would Whigs may have produced emancipation, go on to become Liberal strongholds. By the but it also led to a weak and compromised end of 1832 the struggle for Reform had government. Alienated conservatives considerably shaken the political landscape punished the Government at the next both inside and outside Parliament. Three general election in 1830. ideological groups were now apparent – the declining Whig party, the Radicals and the Ironically for them, the result was a further internally divided Conservatives, the latter weakened Tory Government that allowed under the leadership of Robert Peel. the Whigs to bring the matter of Reform to the top of the agenda. Whig fortunes continued to fall following Lord Russell’s attempts to curb the revenues Reform of the Protestant Church of Ireland. The ‘Reform’ – the movement coalescing around unpopular measures sent four of his cabinet the need to solve the connected problems to the Conservative side, strengthening of rotten boroughs, disenfranchised Peel’s party and also providing more populations in industrial cities, and the evidence of the importance of Church under-representation of an increased matters in nineteenth century politics.8 electorate - became a cause célèbre for the Following the ascension of Queen Victoria Whigs and dissenting Tories. Wrangling in 1837, the Whigs fell into further disarray, over Reform further undermined the leading eventually (in 1841) to a large Conservative Government, and eventually it Conservative majority and Peel’s second was forced to resign. Premiership.

Earl Grey, a Whig, was invited by the King Corn laws to form the new Government. Lord John It appears to me that a moral and even Russell, also a Whig, was placed in charge a religious spirit may be infused into the of Reform. His 1831 Bill was unpopular and topic and if agitated in the same manner led to another General Election. This time, that the question of slavery has been, it more Reform supporters were returned to will be irresistible. 9 government and in 1832 the House of Lords reluctantly passed the Reform measure. The An important popular movement at this electorate was increased to incorporate a time was essential for crystallising liberal larger male population (no women were political attitudes. The Anti-Corn Law yet allowed to vote). Rotten boroughs were League’s campaign was an attack on essentially abolished. Reform extended economic privilege at the same time that it to Scotland, Wales, Ireland and , was a moral crusade directed on behalf of 10 Experiments in Living Part I: History

starving people. The poor were kept in their against the Conservatives. Gladstone was hardship by protectionist laws artificially appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer keeping the price of grain high. and in 1853 he produced the most thoroughgoing Free Trade Budget yet seen. Led by the Radicals Richard Cobden and The economic privilege of landowners John Bright, the Anti-Corn Law campaign was reduced via the extension of legacy rallied behind the idea of Free Trade by duty. Furthermore, over one hundred items appealing to Christian conscience. The were freed from tax, including items such League was known for its Christian rhetoric. as laundry soap, which lent relief to the Bright, a Quaker and Nonconformist, came working poor. The political historian Roy naturally to the language of biblical justice Douglas considers this Budget as ‘one of the and love for neighbour. Cobden, a seasoned most impressive in Britain’s fiscal history.’12 campaigner, was perhaps more calculated in his appropriation of Christian ideals.10 For By 1859 the loose association of opposition Cobden: ‘Their veneration of God shall be politicians were generally known as our leverage to upset their reverence for the ‘Liberals’. The term designated more aristocracy.’11 allegiance to a familial set of principles (such as Reform, Emancipation and Free In any case, the appeal was successful Trade) than to a party, and these members and the Christian conscience (especially officially belonged to different factions. the Nonconformist conscience, as we shall The General Election of that year again see below) was roused. Parliament acted. returned a number of MPs who were able Against the wishes of his protectionist to uphold a majority opposition against the Conservative colleagues, Peel and a minority Conservative Government. Finally, coalition of Whigs supported the abolition on 6th June 1859, a meeting was held in of the Corn Laws. Once again, Peel’s actions London. Two hundred and seventy four MPs alienated large swathes of his own party. turned up and thrashed out an agreement Already bitter from Catholic Emancipation, to properly organise their informal coalition. the Conservatives would never again trust John Bright gave the union his blessing. Peel and his faction, a political fellowship Shortly thereafter, the Conservative that included a certain William Ewart Government was defeated. Palmerston Gladstone. emerged as Prime Minister, Russell became Foreign Secretary, and Gladstone renewed Liberals at last his role as Chancellor – for the first time as In 1852 the , Whigs and Radicals a member of the newly established Liberal who supported Free Trade for economic and Party. moral reasons held the balance of power 11 Experiments in Living Part I: History

J.S. Mill disposition of the Liberal Party owes much One of the most important intellectual to the imprint of this ‘Grand Old Man’. More figures during this time of early and explicit than any other leader, it was Gladstone’s Liberalism was the Radical John Stuart personality, convictions and approach that Mill. His On Liberty (1859), Utilitarianism gave Liberalism the shape and character (1861) and Considerations on Representative that it enjoys to this day. Government (1861) ‘gave clear meaning to the central Liberal concern for freedom.’13 In 1868 the Liberal party was notably Mill’s articulation of the philosophy successful in Scotland, Ireland and Wales of liberty and his ability to trace the – all Nonconformist or Catholic regions. implications of this idea for culture, politics In England, the success of Liberalism and social morality was influential in his was affected by a large Irish immigrant time, and remains so today. Features of population, which again had a strong Mill’s philosophy will be discussed further Catholic overtone. The religious flavour of below.14 Liberal politics was particularly well suited to Gladstone. ‘Politics, for Gladstone, had Evidently, however, Mill’s ideas proved no meaning except as the vindication of more palatable to the electorate than the underlying moral and religious principles’.15 man himself. Despite running in multiple elections, Mill only served as an MP for We will shortly look at some of these three years between 1865 and 1868. It is a principles. However, before considering particularly strange quirk of political history Gladstone’s Christianity, we need to that Mill should have lost his seat at this consider the other key religious influence on time, for the General Election of 1868 was British Liberalism, namely, Nonconformity. otherwise spectacularly successful for the Liberals, returning a large majority of over Christian landscape one hundred members. Historians often stress the importance of religion for understanding the nineteenth W.E. Gladstone century political landscape of the United What the Liberal party may have lost in Kingdom. Then, as now, there were three Mill it more than gained in Gladstone, who main blocs of Christian tradition in the first became Prime Minster after the 1868 UK: Roman Catholics; Protestant National General Election. Gladstone would serve Established Churches; and Protestant as Prime Minister four times: 1868–1874, Nonconformist groups such as Baptists, 1880–1885, 1886 and finally 1892–1894. Congregationalists and Quakers who Although in many ways Gladstone was a opposed official combinations of Church lifelong and deeply conservative, the and State in principle. 12 Experiments in Living Part I: History

In Ireland the majority peasantry was Temperance Movements and political Catholic, the landowners Protestant – Liberalism all drew deeply from these wells. although Ulster Protestants occupied all class levels. Catholicism was strongly Nonconformity identified with Irish nationalism, while Nonconformity supplies the backbone of the Protestant Church of Ireland was English Liberalism.17 associated with English allegiance. In Wales, Nonconformity was a dominant Even before there was a Liberal Party, force. Services were conducted in Welsh, Nonconformists were ‘liberals’. Radicals like and the chapels were locally built and Cobden stood for freedom of association, run. In Scotland, Protestant Presbyterians social justice and personal responsibility held sway over a significant minority – all central planks of Nonconformist of Catholics. Although Established, the belief. After the consolidation of the Presbyterian Church shared with the Party, the campaigning rhetoric of the Nonconformists many features in leadership likes of Gladstone and Bright attacked structure, theology and worship. The privilege of all kinds. The attack was not ‘Disruption’ of 1843 saw the creation of the on the accumulation of wealth or power Free Kirk of Scotland with further affinities per se but on the un-earned nature of to Nonconformity. Politically, Catholics, that accumulation. Inheritance, nepotism, Nonconformists and the Free Church tended obscure legal loopholes - all were attacked towards Liberalism, while the Established as obstacles to progress. ‘Once privilege Churches had strong Tory connections. In was abolished, men would be fully free England, the Nonconformist population and enabled to better their lot in life.’18 It was comparable with the Established was this emphasis that helped to cement Church, with the 1851 national census the support of the ranks of Nonconformist showing almost as many Nonconformists urban poor as well as the rising middle- as Anglicans.16 In England the link between classes of Nonconformist industrialists and landowning and rural Anglicans and professionals. Conservatism was strong, as was the link between Liberalism and Nonconformity. Not only was there an emotional and Nonconformist Christianity was especially intellectual resonance with Liberal ideas; popular amongst the working and middle the 1867 Reform Act provided the means classes of the fast-growing industrial towns. for the Nonconformists to do something These churches provided opportunities about it. Reform enfranchised more people for leadership, education and activism and provided the Liberals with an expanded for people who had no other means of electoral base in the towns and cities. social organisation. Trade Unionism, the The areas of strongest Liberal support 13 Experiments in Living Part I: History

thus corresponded to the regions where party in two main ways: as crusaders for Nonconformity was most prevalent such as moral seriousness and as champions of Wales, Scotland and the North of England. disestablishment.

Liberal nonconformity Christian moral conscience For proponents and opponents alike, Politics is not a pastime, but … a ‘Liberalism’ and ‘Nonconformism’ were perpetual contest with wrong.20 virtually synonymous terms. Some of the age’s greatest parliamentarians The Liberal reputation for moral crusading were Liberal Nonconformists. Joseph and principled politics owes much to Chamberlain’s Liberalism owed much to what historians commonly refer to as the his early Unitarianism. John Bright came ‘Nonconformist conscience’. The first and into political prominence after leading most effective ‘liberal’ and Christian appeal a Dissenter protest against church rates to public morality came from the Anti-Corn in Rochdale in 1840. He would go on to Law campaign of Bright and Cobden. The become the first Nonconformist to sit in success of the campaign showed proto- cabinet in 1868. The Liberal MPs Edward Liberals and Nonconformists alike that Miall, Edward Baines, Samuel Morley and Christian conscience could be harnessed W.T. Stead were all Congregationalists. in the service of revolutionary ideas more commonly (and fearfully) associated with Outside of the House, Nonconformist godless French Revolutionaries. ministers influenced their congregations and the wider voting population. Preachers As a leading Liberal in the 1840s and called for Christian involvement in public 50s, Bright would continue to channel life, and for the use of political power as a Nonconformist religious energy into responsibility towards God and man. In this positive political causes. According to way the Liberal awakening of the 1860s Ian Bradley, ‘More than any other single is largely attributed to Nonconformist figure, Bright gave Victorian Liberalism influence.19 Nonconformity pushed the its distinctive moral rhetoric and fervour. issues of social reform, education policy Palmerston hated him for it, calling him the and temperance in the Liberal party “Honourable and religious gentleman.”’21 agenda. Through this political activity they Gladstone, however, loved it. He would brought an atmosphere of conscience- be quick to capitalise on the crusading based campaigning and commitment fervour and religious tone of the earlier era, to great causes to Victorian public life. peppering his rhetoric with Scriptural verses Apart from proving a core base of voters, and making overt reference to the Christian Nonconformity made its mark on the Liberal conscience throughout his political career. 14 Experiments in Living Part I: History

As the Party came into its own, the Prohibition was not official party policy. Christian conscience was internalised. Nevertheless, the Nonconformist-inspired Nonconformists were quick to punish Temperance Movement was closely Liberals who fell below their moral associated with Liberalism. Of 123 standards. Financial probity and family Temperance leaders between 1831 and faithfulness were important issues, and 1871, 119 were Liberals.22 The Liberal social MPs were often held to account on these philosopher (and Christian) T.H. Green was matters. Politicians with ambiguous marital a Temperance supporter. The free-thinker relationships – such as the adulterous John Morely considered prohibition to Charles Parnell in 1860 and the divorced be ethically on a par with abolition and Charles Dilke in 1886 – found their careers admired the Nonconformists for it. stymied. By and large, the effort worked. Liberal politicians were generally accepted The Tories routinely caricatured the Liberals to be less corrupt than their parliamentary as the anti-drink party, and indeed the opponents, not partaking, for example, in party suffered from its association with the bribery-for-votes schemes often used by the Temperance campaign. Some prominent Tories. As for Party policy, Nonconformists Liberals such as J.S. Mill and Gladstone applied their considerable moral energies opposed prohibition on the grounds of to three main areas: alcohol reform, individual freedom and in support of free prostitution and opposition to foreign trade. Others distanced themselves from the despots. movement that was often associated with a killjoy image, rather than social justice. Temperance Addiction to drink was the source of many Prostitution of the social ills plaguing nineteenth Nonconformist campaigners were far century society, especially in those more successful in rousing the conscience industrial and working-class regions most of the nation regarding prostitution represented by the Liberals and served by and sex-slavery. Three of the most well- the Nonconformists. Abuse of drink lent known campaigns for women and against itself easily to abuse of people, especially prostitution came from Liberals acting on, violence against women at the hands of and appealing to, Christian principles. The their drunken husbands. Furthermore, crusades of Gladstone, Josephine Butler and drink contributed to hopelessness, it W.T. Stead brought to light many shameful affected the wise use of money and it facts about the abuse of women and traffic inhibited industriousness – all anathema of children in Victorian society. The resulting to Nonconformists who elevated individual moral outcry led to the increase in the age responsibility to a sacred plane. 15 Experiments in Living Part I: History

of consent (from 13 to 16) and a campaign Nonconformist conscience, each side against child prostitution. needing the other in order to gain political influence once again. His reliance on Tyranny Nonconformist support was not lost on The Nonconformist conscience was not Gladstone, who proclaimed to followers at a confined to internal affairs. In 1876, rally in Holyhead: reports came in of Bulgarian Orthodox Christians being killed by their Turkish I am a decided and convinced member Ottoman masters. For diplomatic reasons, of the Church of England, I have been the Conservative government led by Prime there all my life, and I trust that there Minster Disraeli refused to condemn the I shall die. But that will not prevent me action. The situation whereby a Christian from bearing an emphatic testimony to nation was taking the side of a Muslim this: that the cause of justice, the cause Empire while it massacred other Christians of humanity, of mercy, of right, of truth appalled much of the British population. for millions of God’s creatures in the Liberal Nonconformists in particular were East of Europe, has found its best, its dismayed that British national interests most consistent, and its most unanimous were being allowed to trump matters of supporters in the Nonconformist justice and peace. churches of the land.24

W.T. Stead began the agitation in the Christian disestablishment Northern Echo in 1876, but it soon This last quote highlights the second issue roused the ire of the Grand Old Man, dear to the Nonconformist heart, as well bringing Gladstone out of retirement as indicating the limits to Nonconformist and into leadership of the Liberal Party. support of Gladstone. Important as moral Gladstone’s barnstorming pamphlet The crusades were, it was in fact the issue of Bulgarian Horrors and the Question of the disestablishment that lay at the heart East sold 200, 000 copies in one month of Nonconformist involvement in Liberal and brought him back into favour with politics. the Nonconformist base which had been formerly disappointed by his stance on The Nonconformist memory stretched back disestablishment (see below).23 As well to historical persecutions at the hands of as rejuvenating Gladstone’s career, the the Established powers-that-be. The Puritans campaign gave new life to the Liberals, were a source of ideological heroes for the who were once again seen as the moral Nonconformists.25 They found in Liberalism crusaders of politics. It was a perfect the same Puritan values of freedom of marriage of Gladstonian leadership and conscience, sovereignty of the individual 16 Experiments in Living Part I: History

and discipline of thought and morals Liberals of a Nonconformist bent, Gladstone that were thought to be undermined by was not liberal enough concerning the established Christianity. principle of disestablishment. From the 1870s onwards, the Nonconformist Liberal It was not mere bad-blood or jealousy of Edward Miall was the first MP to propose Anglicanism’s favoured status that drove English disestablishment: ‘Religious opposition to establishment. Instead, equality is in strict keeping with the entire national settlements of any kind were seen framework of Liberal policy which they have as bad for the life of the Church and the helped by past legislation to construct.’27 nation. ‘The existence of an Established Church was seen by Nonconformists as Non-Christian disestablishment a positive hindrance to the spread of At this time radicals and ‘free-thinkers’ Christianity in Britain.’26 For Christian also took up the torch of full-scale disestablishmentarians, Church–State disestablishment. These deist or atheist alliances serve only to compromise the campaigners promoted the programme for Church’s freedom to serve and proclaim to wholly different reasons and did not share the nation, as any church must. the Nonconformist concern for preserving authentic Christian witness free from state Significantly, until it was revived somewhat control. during the Bulgarian affair, it was disagreement about disestablishment John Morely, politician and editor of the Pall that eventually eroded Nonconformist Mall Gazette (and future first biographer support for Gladstone. Gladstone started of Gladstone) became a leading agitator out well. His moral seriousness and for secularism. His crusade was to remove evangelical upbringing stood in his favour. religious influence and reference to Nonconformists also liked Gladstone’s Christianity altogether. Joseph Chamberlain, constant appeals to the national originally a Universalist Nonconformist, conscience. The Gladstonian government made no religious appeals when he also made some positive moves in the argued for the economic and political direction of disestablishment. It abolished reasons for separating Church and State in church rates in 1868, disestablished the 1874. Together, Morely and Chamberlain Church of Ireland in 1869 and religious represented the ascendant wing of the tests for Oxford and Cambridge 1871. In Liberal Party that sought disestablishment 1872 a Burials Bill was introduced which for purely secularist reasons. Significantly, would allow for any (or no) type of Christian their campaign hinged on disendowment of service to be held at funerals. It was the Anglican Church. This was the process eventually passed in 1880. Yet for many whereby land and buildings (namely all 17 Experiments in Living Part I: History

cathedrals and churches built after 1818) misjudgement of the national mood. would be taken from the Church and sold It was perceived as a punishment of to other organisations. The revenues would an organisation which even some then be ploughed back into re-building Nonconformists tended to agree was the educational system, which itself would doing its best to be faithful to its calling. have been drastically restructured following Liberal Christian disestablishmentarians forced disestablishment. did not wish to penalise their Anglican brothers, but to free them. The secular Clearly, the Liberal campaign failed and turn of disestablishment based on Establishment remained. Ironically for disendowment ensured the alienation of the secular disestablishmentarians, they otherwise potential recruits to the cause. would have doubtless seen more success ‘Gladstone could never have countenanced if they had not sidelined the Christian the secularisation of British cathedrals, nor voices in their midst. At base, the Liberal indeed could Nonconformists like Samuel secularists misunderstood the nature of Morely.’28 ‘church’, of ‘mission’ and of the Christian conversation being had about these things. Disestablishment remains on the books The secularists assumed, wrongly, that the as a Liberal policy. Yet it is also an congregation of the faithful was being argument that continually fails to gain held together primarily by support of the much traction with the public at large, state, and that the Church of England and does not figure prominently as an (and perhaps Christianity itself) would issue in contemporary political campaigns. fade away once this support was removed. If not for Nonconformist disillusionment Those with more sensitivity to Christian with Gladstone on the one hand and life and practice recognised that Christians marginalisation by secularists on the other congregated for reasons of faith, service, in the nineteenth century, the cultural fellowship and worship, none of which landscape of Britain and the fortunes of essentially required Government subsidy. the Liberal party today may have looked Nonconformists did not envision or expect vastly different. To see further why the collapse of Anglican Christianity; rather disestablishment across the board failed to they looked to the flourishing of all Christian become a feature of early Liberalism it is corporate life, and the state recognition useful to look at the other great religious of the contribution that all churches were influence on the Liberal Party past and making. present, and that is the issue of Gladstone’s Christianity. In a related vein, the policy of disendowment proved to be a severe 18 Experiments in Living Part I: History

Primary purposes freedom of belief and the role of the Church [My life] has appeared and yet appears in public life. to me to carry the marks of the will of God. For when have I seen so strongly Establishment and freedom the relation between my public duties Unsurprisingly, Gladstone’s approach and the primary purposes for which God to religious freedom and matters of made and Christ redeemed the world?29 establishment matured and developed over the course of a long career. What is The contours and influence of Gladstone’s perhaps more surprising is how consistently Christianity remains a puzzle to many Gladstone stuck to his original core commentators.30 Undeniably complicated, principles. The young Tory High Anglican it is not easy to track Gladstone’s actions and the elder Liberal statesman are not so and thoughts across such a long and different as some might think. fruitful career. He is a paradoxical figure. An intensely practical and pragmatic politician, How is it, then, that the man who led Gladstone also held to a strong sense that the charge to disestablish the Church of he was divinely called to office. A High Ireland in the 1860s could be at the same Anglican, he attracted heroic devotion time the Church of England’s strongest amongst many Nonconformists. A classical defender? How could a man who believed scholar with a predilection for academic in the centrality of Christianity for British theology, nonetheless he was supremely politics also argue that religious oaths adept at appeals to the common man. A should be removed to allow Jews, Catholics founding father of Liberalism, he remained a and atheists to take their rightful place Peelite Tory at heart. in Parliament? Considering the lengths and depths to which Gladstone went to So it is that when looking at the matter ground his passions and political principles of Gladstone’s Christianity and his theologically, the charge that he was merely politics, many issues could be considered. incompetent or simply inconsistent does not We will focus here on the curious topic hold water. of Gladstone’s approach to church establishment and religious toleration. An Commentators who take seriously the examination of Gladstonian Liberalism in Christianity underpinning Gladstone’s this area has the double benefit of shedding Liberalism are most helpful here. The light on the historical process that shaped political scientist David Lorenzo pays the cultural and political landscape of the attention to Gladstone’s ‘dualistic United Kingdom, as well as providing a way religious anthropology’, which Lorenzo to look at modern liberal approaches to explains as ‘his description of humans 19 Experiments in Living Part I: History

requiring both the freedom to follow their unity of religious action in the state, but individual consciences and the teachings unity of personal composition with respect of the institutional church to direct their to religious profession’.34 In other words, spirituality’.31 Throughout his career, neither the state, nor the people, nor the Gladstone believed in reciprocal rights and churches can see clearly. Inevitably, as a duties of people and groups.32 This position consequence of error and sin, there will be was outlined as early as Gladstone’s first disagreement and dissent; however, this book The State in its Relations with the should not prevent people from working Church, published in 1841. towards right relations and consensus as far as possible. Toleration is necessary for this Here, the state is conceived as a sort of process. In this way Gladstone supports the mass ‘person’. As a ‘person’, the state principle of establishment and the principle enjoys a moral purpose derived, ultimately, of religious toleration. from following the will of God. Within this framework, the state thus needs to Gladstone successfully fought for the enjoy a healthy relationship with religion; disestablishment of the Protestant Church the Church, as the deposit of teaching of Ireland at the same time as he defended and tradition, acts as the conscience of the continued establishment of the the state, always pointing it towards its Protestant Church of England. When looking calling.33 As the state is the extension at the issue it is tempting to see only of individual lives, ideally it will operate inconsistency. Yet this would be to assume, in perfect harmony with the values of as Gladstone did not, that all expressions its citizens – values which themselves and contexts of ‘church’ are the same. For have been shaped by a Church properly Gladstone, some churches were simply in tune with the will of God. A state that closer to the social and spiritual ideal. The completely severs its relation with religion reciprocal relationship between individual, is incomplete. What is worse, shorn of state and church is more fully realised in conscience or a sense of ultimate value some contexts than others. beyond its own existence, such states are prone to tyranny. Gladstone recognised the fundamental Christian truth that people must be free in Gladstone acknowledged that such an their faith or it is no faith at all (see Part ideal situation for Church and State does Two). Religious freedom means that people not actually exist. ‘The absolute and must be allowed to follow God without strictly ideal perfection of this theory … coercion. Yet Gladstone also recognised that requires conditions that have never been individuals do not decide for themselves in a fully realised in our fallen state … not only vacuum. Private judgement is not generated 20 Experiments in Living Part I: History

from out of nowhere, or from within. disestablishment in 1868 and 1869 he Instead, persons are clearly conditioned by did so along the lines that the majority the institutions around them. Gladstone population of Ireland was suffering social did not have much faith in the ability of injustice as a result of an inadequate and untutored, isolated individuals to find their inappropriate church, rather than according way to right belief or knowledge on their to a blanket principle of disestablishment. own.35 Catholics were not afforded equal protection, and as a result, their state For the early Gladstone, religious tolerance existed in a position of chronic crisis. His in this context meant indulgence of error point was not that the people should have while people seek to find their way. From no church. It was that the Church should the 1850s onwards, Gladstone’s approach to be suited to the people, deeply rooted toleration altered as he came into personal in their culture and able to contribute to and political contact with Catholics and the formation of their moral and spiritual Nonconformists.36 While he never stopped lives without recourse to coercion or state defending the Anglican Church’s established protection. status, his understanding of religious freedom moved from the minimal ‘absence England of coercion’ to the more positive provision My object and desire has ever been and of equal protection. So, for example, in the still is, to keep the Church of England run-up to the 1865 election, Gladstone together, both as a church and as an campaigned against those who wrong- establishment.39 headedly defended the Church of England by ‘maintaining odious distinctions against For Gladstone a different situation applied our Roman Catholic or dissenting fellow- to England. Following Irish disestablishment, subjects.’37 there had been repeated Liberal attempts to do the same in England. In 1871 and 1873 Ireland the Prime Minister countered the members The Established and Protestant Church in of his party by using the same logic for Ireland had manifestly failed to convert or English Establishment that he had earlier shape the hearts and minds of the majority used for Irish Disestablishment. In the of the Irish Catholic population. As a guide specific case of England, the national church to moral formation and state conscience worked as a matter of social justice because the Irish Church was unsuccessful, and had the majority population supported it. The instead contributed to massive political Anglican Church had shaped even those and spiritual instability.38 When Gladstone who were not active believers, for its waters spoke in Parliament in favour of Irish ran deep. For Gladstone, Anglicanism was 21 Experiments in Living Part I: History

inextricable from the history and character Atheist oaths of England. As a psychological, cultural and In 1883, Gladstone defended the right moral influence, the Church was serving its of Mr Bradlaugh to take his seat as MP rightful role in the state. ‘Take the Church of for Northampton, despite the fact that England out of the history of England and Bradlaugh was a confessed atheist who the history of England becomes a chaos, could not in good conscience swear the without order, without life and without oaths of allegiance necessary to sit in meaning.’40 Parliament.42 Against his opponents, Gladstone argued that eligibility to hold Gladstone’s Christianity demanded office was not dependant on religious that membership of any church – even profession. Toleration in a Christian-formed nationally established ones – should be state meant equal protection and equal voluntary and free.41 The Church exists to rights to all who were loyal to the state, educate willing individuals, which in turn regardless of their loyalty to Christianity. guides the conscience of the state. This Furthermore, for the ever-practical could not happen in Ireland, and thus the Gladstone, such oaths did nothing to Church should be disestablished. However, preserve actual Christianity. All they did was according to Gladstone, the Church of ban honourable non-Anglicans. At the same England was largely performing its rightful time they were incapable of screening out function. Whereas the Church in the Irish hypocrites who had no qualms about lying, context served to violate the right of equal or anti-Christian deists who had no problem protection, the Church in England, rooted swearing allegiance to the vague and in society, protected it. Because established generalised ‘God’ mentioned in the oaths. English Christianity existed in a happy, organic and reciprocal relationship with the For Gladstone, more damage is done to English people it could underwrite religious authentic Christianity and to society by freedom. While the ideal Church–State dishonesty and abstract religiosity than relation did not exist, in England at least the could ever be done by honourable persons Church was guiding the moral compass of obeying their conscience. After all, the the nation, and the character of the country values of honesty, individual responsibility was shaped by a Christianity appropriate to and freedom of belief are themselves the people. It is from this position of moral evidence of the Christianity inculcated in legitimacy that Gladstone as a Christian that society, whether individuals accept it and as a Liberal was able to champion the or not. rights of Jews, Catholics, Nonconformists and atheists who wished to participate in public life. 22 Experiments in Living Part I: History

Continuing Gladstonian laissez faire principles were not enough, for influence these principles were neither moral, nor just, Since Gladstone the party has undergone nor good. a number of significant highs, lows and changes in configuration – not least the It soon became apparent that Gladstonian era of the Alliance, and then re-formation economic reforms such as free trade and with the Social Democrats, the breakaway the liberalisation of markets had indeed Labour group of the late 1980s. This is not increased prosperity in some quarters; the place to trace a detailed history of the however, the increase was not accompanied party up to the present age.43 What is worth by a decrease in social problems. In the noting, however, is the Gladstonian and face of endemic poverty, poor health, ill Nonconformist influence that has imprinted education and crime it was apparent that itself on the party. As we shall see below, richer societies were not necessarily more when modern Liberal Democrats describe progressive societies. themselves as ‘social liberals’ (which they do), they are demonstrating a connection A new liberalism to the Christian heritage of their party, More was needed than individual freedom even if they do not personally subscribe to for free trade. In 1902 Herbert Samuel in Christianity (which many, of course, do not). his book Liberalism addressed head-on the traditional Liberal mistrust of the state. Gladstone came to define the tone of He argued that Liberals needed to use British Liberalism, harnessing the rhetoric the machinery of their reformed state to and energy of the moral crusade in order to solve social problems.45 In turn, the 1906– enact Liberal reforms. For campaigners in 1914 Liberal government led by Henry the Gladstonian mould, these reforms were Campbell-Bannerman laid the foundation largely ‘bound up with the identification of for the welfare state. They initiated privilege as the enemy.’44 As we have seen progressive taxation and concentrated on above, wide differences of wealth within land ownership. The Liberal government society were not the problem, as much as introduced old age pensions, national was the unjustifiable and irrational way in unemployment and sickness insurance, and which this wealth had been accumulated national labour exchanges. By 1921 Ramsay and concentrated. While there was indeed Muir could defineliberalism as: a preference for the free market economy, inheritance, nepotism or legal loopholes A readiness to use the power of the State born of privilege were attacked (especially for the purposes of creating conditions by the Nonconformists and Gladstonians) in which individual energy can thrive, as harming the commonweal. Appeals to of preventing all abuses of power, of 23 Experiments in Living Part I: History

affording to every citizen the means individual. It is a strange quirk of history of acquiring mastery of his or her own that in the present age the most vociferous capabilities, and of establishing a real opponents of ‘liberals’ are apologists for equality of opportunity for all. These unregulated markets, libertarians and other aims are compatible with a very active outspoken conservatives. These anti-liberals policy of social reorganisation, involving are themselves the purest examples of a great enlargement of the functions of a powerful expression of liberalism. One the State.46 suspects, however, that the irony is not often appreciated by these classical liberals. Reforms fuelled by this ‘new liberalism’ changed the face of British society Social liberalism forever. Still, the Liberals stopped short of Social liberals believe that a democratic socialism and in so doing lost ground to and open state has a positive role to play the rising Labour party. The ‘progressives’ in guaranteeing individual freedom.47 were divided, and the Conservatives were rejuvenated. From 1918 onwards the In many ways, social liberalism is a liberal Liberals had to grow used to third party response to the problems raised by status, their brand of liberalism becoming classical liberalism. Social liberals retain the opposition alternative to collectivist an emphasis on individual freedom and state control on the one hand and rewarding initiative. The creation and unfettered free markets on the other. protection of such freedom is a main aim of socially liberal governments, an aim that Classical liberalism necessarily entails guarantee from arbitrary There are now two main streams to western state interference. Social liberals oppose liberalism. Classical liberalism was (and granting the state overt control. They is) mainly concerned with protecting support free trade and the free markets. individuals from the power-hungry However, social liberals have an altogether state, especially in the state’s capacity more positive view of the state than do as economic regulator. Free trade and their classical cousins. Many of the greatest property rights especially are hallmark threats to individual liberty – inequality, concerns of classical liberalism and clearly unemployment, poverty, poor education have their provenance in the Liberalism of and prospects, systematic bigotry, climate the early Victorian era. Extremes of this chaos and the like – require state-sponsored view see taxation and state definition of action to rectify.48 The earliest social liberals property ownership as wrong in principle, saw that the state was often the best and most forms of social aggregation as or only body that could solve otherwise infringements on the supreme rights of the intractable problems of social justice. 24 Experiments in Living Part I: History

Fair distribution of wealth was a prime Liberals are not isolationists, however, and component of social equality, as was the the Gladstonian conscience for oppressed regulation and devolution of power. These peoples continued (and continues) to be things are best addressed using state-led felt. Going against the specious argument solutions and are necessary if the liberal of British self-interest, Liberals were leading goods of fairness and meaningful freedom and principled opponents of South African are to come about. apartheid in the 1980s. Liberals value the free movement of persons, and as a Yet social liberalism describes more than a result have a long history of welcome to philosophy of the limits and uses of state foreigners. In 1892 the Liberal voters of economic intervention. In keeping with the Finsbury elected an Indian to the House Gladstonian and Nonconformist concern for of Commons. In the 1950s the Liberals moral rightness despite the cost, Liberals became popular with the immigrant Jewish consistently choose to toe party lines that population. In 1968 the Liberals were the are not necessarily designed to attract only party to fight for the rights of Asians mass populist support. Liberals were early holding British passports.49 The Liberals converts to the environmental cause, and were the first to implement a gay rights became the greenest of the main parties policy within the party in 1975. In 2009 by the mid-1970s. Furthermore, the Liberal Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats took emphasis on personal freedom over group the political lead in successfully challenging allegiance naturally meant that it was less the Labour Government’s policy denying amenable to nationalistic sentiment or Gurkha veterans the right to remain in jingoism. Against the often-overt patriotic Britain. The party has consistently appealed appeals of their rival political parties, to all class groups and has resisted being Liberals have maintained a distinctive identified with any one stratum of society. internationalist outlook, sympathetic, for While the causes and agendas have example, towards European integration. The changed over time, it is remarkable how same impulse meant that the party tends to the morally principled and socially inclusive oppose increased militarisation, and it did values of Liberalism have remained intact not support the creation of a British nuclear from its earliest days as what was once the deterrent, or the Labour government’s initial home of the Nonconformist conscience. support for the US war in Vietnam in 1964. The Liberal Democrats were the sole party A party divided? consistently to oppose the 2003 invasion I know the birth of this coalition has of Iraq. caused much surprise, and, with it, some offence. There are those on both the left

25 Experiments in Living Part I: History

and right who are united in thinking this on the right and social liberals on the left. should not have happened. […] Following the formation of the coalition government with the Conservatives in 2010 and I both understand this line of reporting has been especially that this government’s unifying prevalent. However, within the party itself, realisation is that power must be Liberals suggest that a media obsessed with dispersed more fairly in Britain conflict has trumped up these divisions. today: from the Whitehall centre to To be sure, there are internal debates, yet communities; into the hands of patients, the fault lines are not as they have been parents and pupils in our public services; portrayed, nor are they as hard and fast as protecting the rights and freedoms of critics sniffing out discord would wish. people from arbitrary state interference; mobilising social mobility through greater The distinction between ‘economic’ and fairness in the tax and school system. In ‘social’ Liberal Democrats should not be short, distributing power and opportunity exaggerated, for ‘economic liberalism’ in to people rather than hoarding authority this case is not equivalent to ‘classical within government. […] liberalism’. Take for example the two main compendiums of Liberal Democrat ideas We will oversee the radical dispersal in the past decade. The Orange Book of power away from Westminster and is often portrayed as ‘right-wing’ and Whitehall to councils, communities economically liberal, while Reinventing and homes across the nation. So that, the State is supposedly ‘left-wing’ and wherever possible, people make the call socially liberal. Yet while the difference in over the decisions that affect their lives. emphasis is apparent, a number of the same And, crucially, the relentless incursions contributing authors can be found in both of the state into the lives of individuals books, including Nick Clegg, that has characterised the last 13 years and Steve Webb.51 The disagreements arise ends here. From rolling back excessive over the means of using the liberal state surveillance, to ending the criminalisation rather than the ends of liberalism. of innocent people, we will restore and protect our hard-won civil liberties. For all Liberal Democrats, society must protect effective liberty for all so that a I call that agenda liberalism.50 rightful government might be formed. ‘One should not, however, exaggerate the Outside commentators often portray the differences … Both begin, and end, with Liberal Democrats as a party divided along the view that the state that fails to secure ideological lines, with economic liberals political freedom is not legitimate.’52 26 Experiments in Living Part I: History

When the markets interfere with political that even today in popular discourse ‘liberal’ is generally considered a term of abuse in America. freedom, they must be curbed. So-called 3 economic liberals seek market solutions to Throughout the following the terms ‘Liberal’ or ‘Liberalism’ (with an upper-case ‘L’) refer to the social problems, but they do not move away political parties that historically have adopted the from the overarching social liberal vision. name, up to and including the Liberal Democrats. The Market solutions will always be attractive use of ‘liberal’ or ‘liberalism’ (in the lower case) refers to the set of ideas and ideologies which obviously because they emphasise individual initiative inform the Liberal parties, but which are not confined and reward decision-making. However, no to them. Liberal thinks that the markets are a force 4 Steed, M. ‘Tradition’, 42. above and beyond human regulation. The 5 These ideas and their Christian ramifications will be market should never be allowed to become explored in full in subsequent sections. a source of illiberality. Likewise, Liberals 6 The Liberal Magazine vol. XLIV, April 1936, 89–95. reject the conservative view (as endorsed by 7 many Tories and New Labour) that security Steed, M. ‘Tradition’, 44. For the influence of Lollardy on British culture, see especially works by Diarmaid is more important than liberty. In any case MacCulloch such as Reformation, Penguin, 2004. the state overreaches its own competence 8 Douglas, R. Liberals: The History of the Liberal and when it tries to control too much. In the end Liberal Democrat Parties, Hambledon and London, it destroys the very freedoms it claims to 2005, 6. protect. Over-concentration of power is itself 9 Richard Cobden, 1840 letter in Raymond Cowheard, a threat to political liberty, as are excesses Politics of English Dissent, Epworth, 1959, 132. of wealth for the few at the expense of 10 Bradley, I. The Optimists, Faber & Faber, 1980, 112. poverty for the many. For social liberals, 11 Quoted in Read, D. Cobden and Bright, Edward ‘citizens need to be in a position to exercise Arnold, 1967, 32. 53 their rights’. This principle can lead to an 12 Douglas, R. Liberals, 9. extensive programme of public services that 13 Steed, M. ‘Tradition’, 47. goes further than classical liberals would 14 allow but which all Liberal Democrats can On Liberty remains the ‘book of office’ of the Liberal Democrat party. get behind. 15 Douglas, R. Liberals, 19. Notes 16 Bradley, I. Optimists, 101. 17 Gladstone, W. Gleanings of Past Years I, 1879, 158. 1 The Social Democrats merged with the Liberals in 18 1988, after an Alliance forged in 1981. Eventually the Steed, M. ‘Tradition’, 50. name Liberal Democrats was adopted in 1989. 19 Bradley, I. Optimists, 100. 2 Quarterly Review (1816) quoted by Steed, M. ‘The 20 Congregationalist Liberal MP Wilfred Lawson in the Liberal Tradition’ in MacIver, D. (ed.) The Liberal Times, 9 Sept 1879, in Bradley, I. Optimists, 111. Democrats, Prentice Hall, 1996, 46. It is worth noting 21 Bradley, I. Optimists, 113.

27 Experiments in Living

22 Harrison, B. Drink and the Victorians, Faber & Faber, 41 Lorenzo, D.J. Gladstone, 110. 1971, 162. 42 Hansard 26 April, 1883, 1174–1195. 23 See especially Shannon, R. Gladstone: God and 43 As well as Douglas, R. Liberals, another Politics, Continuum, 2008. recommended historical source is the website for the 24 Quoted in Whyte, F. Life of W. T. Stead vol. I, Liberal Democrat History Group: www.liberalhistory. Jonathan Cape, 1925, 52. org.uk. 25 Of the Pall Mall Gazette (a leading Liberal 44 Steed, M. ‘Tradition’, 50. John Bright’s rhetoric was newspaper) Cardinal Manning said: ‘When I read the especially notable for this feature. Pall Mall it seems to me as if Cromwell had come to 45 Ibid., 52. life.’ Quoted in Robertson-Scott, J.W. The Life and Death of a Newspaper, Methuen, 1952, 242. 46 Muir, R. Liberalism and Industry, Towards a Better Social Order, Houghton Mifflin, 1921, 197. 26 Bradley, I. Optimists, 102. 47 ‘What We Stand For’ (www. 27 Hansard 3rd Series CCXVI, 1873, 24. socialliberal.net) 28 Bradley, I. Optimists, 109. 48 See ‘Social Liberalism’ in Brack, D. and Randall, E. 29 Gladstone reflecting on his 69th birthday. Quoted in (eds.) Dictionary of Liberal Thought, Politico’s, 2007. Shannon, Gladstone, 306–307. 49 Steed, M. ‘Tradition’, 57. The Catholic and Liberal 30 For an extensive literary overview, see Shannon’s MP was involved in this campaign at an introduction to Gladstone: God and Politics. Bemused early stage in his career. biographers include John Morely and . 50 Nick Clegg writing in , Friday 14 May 31 Lorenzo, D.J. ‘Gladstone, Religious Freedom and 2010. Practical Reasoning’ in History of Political Thought 51 It is also worth noting in passing that key XXVI.1, Spring 2005, 90–119, 94. contributors and editors to both books are Christians. 32 Douglas, R. Liberals, 20. 52 Howarth, D, ‘What is Social Liberalism?’ in Brack, 33 Gladstone, W. The State in its Relations with the D., Grayson, R.S. et al (eds.) Reinventing the State, Church vol. I, 1841, 4–5. Politico’s, 2007, 4. 34 Gladstone, W. State vol. II, 282–283. 53 Ibid., 7. 35 Ibid., 177; See Shannon, R. Gladstone 1809–1865, Chapel Hill, 1984, 113–114; Lorenzo, D.J. ‘Gladstone’, 99. 36 See for example Gladstone, W. Gleanings vol. III, 102–125. 37 Shannon, R. Gladstone, 54. 38 Gladstone, W. Gleanings vol. VII, 123–125. 39 Gladstone, W. quoted in Morley, J. Life of W.E. Gladstone vol. II, Edward Lloyd, 1902, 502. 40 Gladstone, W. quoted in Lorenzo, D.J. ‘Gladstone’, 114. See also Gladstone, W, State, and Gleanings vol. III, 224–273. 28 Experiments in Living

Part II: Liberty

For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. (Galatians 5.1)

One cannot have liberalism without liberty. against this assumption, Harvard sociologist A generalised sense of liberty and freedom Orlando Patterson reminds us infuses all facets of Western society. More specifically, the tendency towards freedom There is nothing at all self-evident in the informs all Liberal political decisions. In this idea, or, more properly, the high esteem part the essay moves from history to looking in which we in the West hold freedom. at the ideological roots and theological For most of human history, and for dimensions of liberty. Freedom is a crucial nearly all of the non-Western world prior component of Christian doctrine. In turn, to Western contact, freedom was, and Christianity has contributed to liberal for many still remains, anything but an conceptions of what it is to be free. As obvious or desirable goal.2 noted, there are two main conceptions of liberty at play in modern liberalism. These Patterson points out that there is no can be roughly identified as autonomous shortage of other ideals that historically liberty (freedom from) and teleological, have been, and demonstrably still are, of far or purposeful liberty (freedom for).1 Part greater importance for other cultures. The Two concludes with an examination of list seems endless, including the pursuit of these two conceptions and their relation to glory, honour, military valour, family success, Christianity. nationalistic triumph, hedonism, nirvana, the true faith, secularism, justice, progress, The high value that Western culture places material wealth, ecological harmony and on ‘liberty’ is easily taken for granted. Of more. What the list often does not include – course liberty is a natural right. Obviously except in those cultures most aligned with freedom is a basic human value. The Western liberalism – is ‘freedom’. preamble to the American Declaration of Independence, that great document of Freedom has long been a core value of liberal confidence, proclaimed in 1776 ‘We Western society, however it has not always hold these truths to be self-evident …’ Yet had the front and centre attention that 29 Experiments in Living Part II: Liberty

it enjoys today. The notion has its firm of human nature in the other. We can see political roots in the democracy of classical how this is so by turning to an examination Greece and the imperial peace of Rome. of some central tenets of Christian thought. The value was generated from within these societies as they wrestled with the existence Something from nothing of slavery and the experience of social If God exists in any way like the Christian stratification. However, it was the injection story of God says he exists, then that God is of Christian thought and values that made the ground of all creation, the one in whom ‘freedom’ the overarching value for what we all live and have our being. would become modern liberal societies. It was in Christendom that Christianity The story of ‘freedom’ has its beginning became ‘the first, and only, world religion here, at the beginning of everything. that placed freedom – spiritual freedom, redemption – at the very centre of its The Christian articulation of ‘God as theology.’ In this way freedom became Creator’ says something about God, but enshrined in all Western peoples. ‘Wherever it also says a lot about creation. The Christianity took root, it garnered converts Christian doctrine of creation is not to not only to salvation in Christ but to the be confused with the rather recent and ideal of freedom.’3 muddled noisy conversation being had in some circles over Creationism. Historically, This is in contrast to the story a certain the Christian theology of creation is not section of modern liberalism likes to tell about the mechanics of the generation about itself. A prime example can be and formation of life, but instead is a deep seen in the philosopher A.C. Grayling and and rich reflection on the nature of reality. his surprising claim that ‘The history of Properly speaking, Christian thought is less liberty proves to be another chapter … in concerned with the how of creation than the great quarrel between religion and it is with the why. Why is there something secularism for without the latter there rather than nothing? What does it say about would (because there could) be no liberty the stuff of nature to say that something at all.’4 Yet this sort of claim is un-historical has been carved out of nothing? and demonstrably false. Our modern senses of liberty are inextricably linked – positively The heart of the Christian doctrine of and negatively – with Christian notions of creation is the idea of creatio ex nihilo – freedom. These notions themselves have that God created something out of nothing, grown from theological reflection on the and, crucially, that this something might nature of God and the world on the one just have easily have not happened at all. hand, and from practical ethical assessment Matter did not have to exist, there is no 30 Experiments in Living Part II: Liberty

compulsion driving the universe. In other abstract reflections on the mystical forces words, freedom is built into the fabric of worked by a distant deity. For the Christian, creation. Christian thought taught that God is only known through Jesus Christ. the world was entirely God’s creature, called from nothingness, not out of need One of the most striking features of the on his part, but by grace. The doctrine of first Christian communities is their belief creation is the doctrine of God’s free action in the divinity of Jesus. Far from being an producing the world as a free gift of love. idea somehow added to pure, primitive Christianity by later generations, the earliest In terms of the history of thought, this Christian documents we have (i.e. Paul’s marks a revolution. The pre-Christian letters, the Gospels and other books of the classical world-view, with its notions of New Testament dating within living memory controlling fate and necessity that binds of Jesus’ original disciples5) reveal a diverse all creatures, gods and men was re-worked number of groups employing a variety of by the Christian imagination. People and literary, philosophical and lyrical ways the world exist by God’s choice, for his to describe the Lordship of Jesus Christ. pleasure and his love. Furthermore, God Such documents are testament to the does not need creation and was not forced thought processes of the earliest Christian to bring the world into existence. The world communities as they worked out the was not fated to exist; it is, fundamentally, implications of their growing belief that the free. As we shall see, modern notions of man who walked amongst them was also – liberty have their provenance in serious somehow – divine. engagement with this Christian idea, tracing its logical implications and working out Within the Christian scheme Jesus Christ the ramifications for reality, morality and is the revelation of God. When we hear his politics. words we hear God’s Word. When we follow his actions, we follow God’s intent. When we Christ-ians not God-ians aspire to living Christ-like lives we aspire to In the beginning was the Word, and the godliness. In short, Christian thought on the Word was with God, and the Word was nature of God (and thus on God’s creation) God. (John 1.1) cannot be done unless it is done through Jesus. And Jesus Christ is always with us Our archaeology of ‘freedom’ has started through the sending of his Spirit. It is only with God, as all endeavours must for the through the Holy Spirit that men know Christian, and indeed as everything logically God, experience the presence of Christ, and must if God, in fact, exists. However, the are inspired and enabled to live lives of concept of freedom did not derive from truth and goodness. In this way, the early 31 Experiments in Living Part II: Liberty

Church’s trinitarian formulations are, at to consider how, through the Christian base, attempts to preserve the first, the best doctrines of the trinity and incarnation, and the most startling features of Christian the absolute freedom of God is conceived. belief. The trinity is a way of describing the Within the Christian system God’s freedom God who is above all things, the God who is always directed towards relation or is in all things and the God who is with all communion. Rather than representing some things. intangible ideal of unfettered power or self- realisation, in the words of the Protestant What does this have to do with freedom? theologian Karl Barth, ‘God’s freedom is When it comes to discerning the nature not merely unlimited possibility or formal of God and creation, the doctrines of the majesty and omnipotence, that is to say incarnation and the trinity are inseparable empty, naked sovereignty.’ Instead, in his from the doctrine of creation. If creatio ex own freedom, God ‘above all willed and nihilo provides the means for understanding determined himself to be the Father and the the nature of free nature, then the Son in the unity of the Spirit.’ 6 Barth points becoming of God as man and the relation out that this is not abstract freedom; it is of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit not the freedom of the radically isolated provide the means by which we might and aloof individual. For the Christian imagine the nature of divine freedom and conception of freedom the implications are thus freedom itself. clear. Even the highest expression of perfect freedom is not one of solitary detachment. A well-known and classical feature of ‘In God’s own freedom there is encounter Divinity is omnipotence. That a god and communion … there is majesty and should be all-powerful, unrestrained and humility, absolute authority and absolute unbounded is not unique to Christianity. obedience; there is offer and response.’7 The picture of freedom that is most naturally derived from this is an ideal of For Christian thought then, God’s freedom radical self-realisation, whereby nothing can is for the relation of his trinitarian self. In hinder the aims of the one who wills. Perfect creation, God’s freedom was for the stuff of freedom, then, might follow some version existence. In the incarnation, God’s freedom of a Nietzschean ‘Will to Power’ whereby is for mankind. God is the God of Abraham, freedom means the absence of all restraint Isaac and Jacob. He is the Father of the including internal weakness and the claims Prodigal Son, the Good Shepherd and the of others. Lord Jesus Christ. The Christian concept of God cannot be had apart from having a However, unlike these other versions of God who, in his omnipotent freedom, chose perfectly realised freedom it is salient 32 Experiments in Living Part II: Liberty

to bind and commit himself to humanity of our own wills for the purpose of reaching and human history. something greater than the isolated, unaided self could hope to attain. Here we can see the two senses of ‘freedom’ at play. The tension between the freedom of We shall see below how political, secular autonomous self-assertion and the freedom liberalism has retained a form of purposeful for engagement and relational flourishing liberty. However, it is religions, especially is evident within theological reflection including Christianity, which have kept on the character of divine omnipotence. ‘freedom for a purpose’ most alive. On a Historically this tension has been even practical level, this can easily set Christian more manifest in reflection on the nature of life and practice at odds with a culture human liberty. intent on the other form of freedom. For the American social theologian Stanley Freedom for Hauerwas, the Christian’s liberty is precisely Traditionally, the classical and early the liberty of a life lived according to a Christian sense of ‘freedom’ was primarily good purpose: that of telos or purpose. To say that a person is free in this sense is not to say that The salvation promised in the good news a person enjoys the ability to follow through is not a life free from suffering, free from with whatever he or she wills. Instead, servitude, but rather a life that freely freedom means being at liberty to realise suffers, that freely serves, because such one’s true essence, and thus flourish. suffering and service is the hallmark of the Kingdom established by Jesus. As For Plato and Aristotle, and also for some Christians we do not seek to be free Church Fathers, liberty means freedom but rather to be of use, for it is only by to live a life of virtue. This is determined serving that we discover the freedom not according to each individual’s opinion offered by God. We have learned that or desire, but instead according to a freedom cannot be had by becoming reasoned, disciplined and shared reflection ‘autonomous’ – free from all claims on ‘the good’. Purposeful freedom seeks except those we voluntarily accept – but emancipation from whatever constrains rather freedom literally comes by having human flourishing. As well as other our self-absorption challenged by the people, things or events, often what most needs of another.9 constrains us is our own untutored passions, our ignorance, our compulsions and our Freedom from irrational choices.8 Liberty of this sort often Enlightenment is man’s emergence from means precisely liberty from the bondage his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity 33 Experiments in Living Part II: Liberty

is the inability to use one’s understanding sense of liberty dominates to the extent without guidance from another. This that the ethicist Stephen Mott can say that immaturity is self-imposed when its cause freedom from ‘arbitrary external authority’ lies not in lack of understanding, but is a basic hallmark of liberalism, and the in lack of resolve and courage to use it political theologian Robert Song identifies without guidance from another.10 the human agent as ‘sovereign chooser’ at the heart of much modern liberalism.12 The freedom to serve an overriding purpose outside of the self runs directly against the It is worth noting, however, that contra dominant account of freedom since the Grayling and other cheerleaders of the eighteenth century. Teleological freedom Enlightenment, the principle of autonomous for still has a voice within modern Liberals freedom is not actually a principle of and liberalism,11 however, its impact on rationality. ‘Freedom for us today is the cultural imagination has been severely something transcendent even of reason… undermined by the power of freedom from. [Freedom] is its own justification.’13 Instead, the chief value of this freedom is the The story told by the late Enlightenment is inviolable liberty of self-determination the story of human history developing to – ‘free-choice’ is the ultimate arbiter of the point where persons are increasingly ‘freedom’. The will is sovereign not to the free from whatever constrains their own degree that it is rational or ‘enlightened’ but heroic will. Liberation means liberty from only so far as it is beholden to nothing else. those antique notions such as divine The lengths to which the self is constrained purpose, overarching truth or natural law by nothing greater than itself is the measure which might place unwelcome constraints of its liberty. upon self-determination. In this process, individuals are set free from those arbitrary The strong association of ‘freedom’ with the authorities, traditions and institutions which ‘will’ tends to uncouple the will from reason. claim intellectual and moral monopoly In turn this tends to render freedom to be over persons. It is this story, or a variation a matter of pure choice. Freedom is not of it, which Grayling and others have in seen to lead towards an ultimate horizon, mind when they narrate the typical story of or to adhere to the content of what has liberty as being won from religion. been chosen. Instead freedom’s end is in the act of choosing itself. The proper term It is testament to the strength of this for the philosophical principle of choice narrative that ‘choice’ is the value assumed operating in a fundamentally directionless by all sides in most of the ethical and environment is nihilism. political debates of the present age. This 34 Experiments in Living Part II: Liberty

To identify this ethos of modern liberalism The Christian concept of a god – the god as nihilistic is not necessarily to apply a as the patron of the sick, the god as a term of abuse. It is an appropriate label spinner of cobwebs, the god as a spirit – insofar as nihilism is simply the rejection is one of the most corrupt concepts that of a governing reality defining ‘the good’.14 has ever been set up in the world … God Neither need the designation ‘nihilism’ degenerated into the contradiction of be synonymous with anarchy or violence. life. Instead of being its transfiguration As liberal philosophers such as John Gray and eternal Yea! In him war is declared have pointed out, a major task of the on life, on nature, on the will to live! God plural society is to learn how to live in a becomes the formula for every slander world with non-reconcilable world-views.15 upon the ‘here and now,’ and for every lie In this context nihilism is likely to be about the ‘beyond’! In him nothingness seen as a valid approach. Indeed, if there is deified, and the will to nothingness is are no transcendent truths, if there is no made holy!16 ultimate horizon and no direction for human flourishing, then a thoroughgoing nihilism Unlike many of the current crop of so-called is the most honest and practical philosophy ‘New Atheists’ filling the bookshelves, that we have. Nietzsche was no lazy despiser of a straw-man version of Christianity. Even his Nihilism based on the autonomous freedom (admittedly spiteful) description of the one from authority, restraint and ultimate for whom ‘nothingness is deified, and the purpose may well lead to a peace of sorts. will to nothingness is made holy’ is not far But this peace would be a far cry from the off from one of Christianity’s earliest ethical peace sought by liberal societies informed and Christological formulas: by Christianised principles. Even the non- Christian or secularist liberal might blanch Your attitude should be the same as that at a world where autonomous nihilism is of Christ Jesus, given free rein. To see how this is so it is worth briefly looking at the most articulate Who, being in very nature God, did not visionary of the unfettered individual, the consider equality with God something nineteenth century German philosopher to be grasped, but made himself Friedrich Nietzsche. nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. For Nietzsche, religion – specifically (Philippians 2.5–7, NIV) Christianity – was ultimately the result of frightened humans seeking to escape from When Nietzsche rejected Christianity he the harsh demands and realities of life. was rejecting a view of the world and of 35 Experiments in Living Part II: Liberty

the divine that Christians themselves can is someone who has so refined his Will to recognise. Power that he has freed himself from all outside influences and created his own No one would understand such a values.20 No one, not the weak, the poor, the god: why should any one want him? … slow or the old, has a right to claim on the [T] imorous and demure; he counsels good-will of the strong ones who live in azure “peace of soul,” hate-no-more, leniency, isolation from the rest and from each other. “love” of friend and foe. He moralizes For nihilism, there is no ‘right’, only ‘might’. endlessly; he creeps into every private virtue; he becomes the god of every Here, then, is the peace offered by supreme man …17 autonomous freedom.

Nietzsche appreciated the deep roots of Fantastical self-authorship Christian thought and the implications of Very few cultural-political systems actively the doctrine of the God-Man for freedom, pursue the ethic of the Superman; those life and society. Rather than pretend that that do tend to inspire World Wars. Yet one could have the ‘goods’ of a Christian one need not look only to fascistic and society without Christianity, Nietzsche genocidal regimes in order to see the took seriously the idea of a world without adverse effect that philosophies of nihilistic transcendent values. The setting of his individualism can have on society. The sense famous pronouncement ‘God is dead … and that freedom means freedom from anything we have killed him’18 has nothing to do with that prevents individuals from becoming philosophically proving the non-existence of ‘sovereign choosers’ remains the dominant a deity. It is instead a serious and insightful sense underlying our current Anglo- attempt to trace the social and ethical American liberal culture. implications of a culture that is functionally atheistic. The harm to society wreacked by relentless individualism, a culture of instant In such a world, Nietzsche recognises that gratification and the equation of ‘citizen’ there can only be individual lives thriving with ‘consumer’ is well known. There is at the expense of others. There is no law no end to the ink spilled by columnists, of restraint, only a drive for autonomy and politicians and religious writers wrestling dominance which Nietzsche terms the ‘Will with the problems of our increasingly to Power’, or the ‘instinct to freedom’.19 shallow, brutal world. Often Christian Nietzsche proclaims the Übermensch commentators are among the most strident (Overman or Superman) as the ultimate ideal critics. For the radical Marxist-Catholic critic and end goal of humanity. The Superman Terry Eagleton: 36 Experiments in Living Part II: Liberty

Self-authorship is the bourgeois fantasy influence of ‘freedom’ operating in a par excellence. Denying that our freedom void bereft of transcendent value. Liberal thrives only within the context of a more thinkers have long been at the forefront fundamental dependency lies at the root of those attempting to find solutions for a of a good deal of historical disaster.21 society broken by the individualistic version of liberalism. Navigating between the The Protestant theologian Wolfgang competing versions of freedom is the source Pannenburg suggests that our culture is in of much liberal endeavour. danger of dying as a result of its godless liberty: For all liberals or historians of liberal thought, the tension between the liberty of The dissolution of the traditional the individual and the ability to promote a institutions of social life including family flourishing society needs to be preserved. and marriage for the sake of promoting So for example, the philosopher (and since the emancipation of the individual leaves 2008 the leader of the Canadian Liberal the individual to the fate of increasing party) Michael Ignatieff argues that the loneliness in the midst of a noisy problem with most contemporary political machinery of ‘communication’. It is not systems is not that they are individualistic likely that secular societies will be able in so much as they operate with an absence the long run to survive the consequences of any account of ‘the good’. Without this, of the much-touted emancipation of the he notes, individuals are led to believe that individual. In some parts of the world, any and all their needs and desires are secular culture survives because it lives legitimate.24 off the substance of whatever in Christian tradition and morals has not yet been At the end of his groundbreaking used up in the process of secularisation.22 sociological study The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Max Weber For the philosopher Roger Trigg, regarding suggests ‘the idea of duty in one’s calling the Christian roots of modern values: prowls about in our lives like the ghost ‘Remove the foundations and the of dead religious beliefs.’25 This sense of superstructure will eventually totter.’23 ‘calling’, for Weber, constituted one of the fundamental elements of the rise of modern Whether these critics are overly pessimistic culture. Will individuals be able to look or merely realistic in their analysis remains beyond themselves, will they be able to to be seen. It should be noted, however, persevere at their endeavours even in the that it is not only Christian theologians absence of immediate gratification in a who are concerned about the corrosive world which rejects belief in transcendent 37 Experiments in Living Part II: Liberty

purpose? Weber is doubtful. ‘The modern the competing natures of freedom from and man is in general, even with the best will, freedom for these claims inevitably clash. unable to give religious ideas a significance The will of the individual will often impinge for culture and national character which on the general good of wider society, they deserve.’26 and vice versa. For example, does the autonomous liberty of a single, teenage girl Impersonal law who wishes to have a baby on state benefit The liberal impulse is always one in reaction trump the values of responsible parenthood against the arbitrary authority of kings, that contribute to social stability? How far popes and other monopolies of power. should a liberal society allow the freedom of Yet at the same time liberalism seeks the speech exercised by a racist bigot? regulation of social life by universal and impersonal laws. There are strong strands The well-known liberal strategy for practical within the tradition that seek to ground politics in these matters is to refer to the liberty and purpose in something other harm principle from John Stuart Mill’s On than a named, personal and specific deity. Liberty. For Mill, individuals should be While the ‘traditional control mechanisms free to do anything that does not result in of the Church, class, and political order harm to other individuals. Society may only were held to be unnatural’27, candidates restrict individual freedoms if the exercise for alternative versions of the transcendent of those freedoms brings demonstrable included such forces as History, Necessity, damage to others. the World–Spirit, Deism, Laws of Nature and the Market amongst others. Politically, these The only purpose for which power can turns to the ‘transcendent’ are inevitably be rightfully exercised over any member worked out through emphasis on the rule of of a civilised community, against his will, law, and in the provision of legal guarantees is to prevent harm to others. His own protecting individuals from overwhelming good, either physical or moral, is not a power or personalities. In economics, sufficient warrant.28 impersonal market forces and objective contract law replace dominant individuals The principle attempts to hold together the or groups. Liberals have long sought non- two types of freedom. On the one hand, the interference from government, the abolition possibility that there might be a ‘physical of monopolies and free-trade for this reason. or moral’ good of an individual is not denied. On the other hand, Mill steps back In the name of liberty, liberals promote from allowing the state or other corporate fiscal, racial, gender, civic, national, local authority to determine or influence this and personal freedoms. Yet, as a result of good. 38 Experiments in Living Part II: Liberty

However, by holding up ‘harm’ as the only Positive and negative freedom case where intervention is warranted, Liberal politics necessitate a balancing Mill has not escaped succumbing to the act between the two types of freedom highly individualistic nature of liberal at work. In practical terms, liberal policy freedom. Here again we see that ‘liberty’ differentiates between ‘negative’ and can ultimately only mean that which does ‘positive’ freedom. Negative freedom refers not coerce or restrain an individual and the to the legal guarantee of private space from general concept of ‘harm’ becomes difficult public interference. Negatively, the state to articulate. Notoriously, the notion of agrees not to intrude. This corresponds most harm is also endlessly contestable – it has closely to autonomous freedom from and to no morally neutral definition. For example, Mill’s rule of harm, and as such it shares in the right to suicide is considered by many the problems posed by those principles. liberals to belong to the sphere of individual freedom. However, it is arguably harmful Positive freedom can refer to the ability to others if I kill myself. Not only do I set to pursue long-term goals unhindered a precedent to the vulnerable, ill or elderly by ignorance or untutored passions and that their lives, too, are not worth living, I corresponds most closely to purposeful am also removing myself from the common freedom for. Attempts to legislate this sort life by withholding my contribution to of freedom are fraught with difficulties. A society. Or, to take the example of the freely modern liberal government that actively speaking racist, a typical liberal response seeks to educate its citizens regarding is to allow the speech but intervene at the the good life is playing with the same fire point of physical damage. Yet the cultural that classical liberalism sought to put out. and psychic blot that bigotry makes in Common liberal debates in this area include the communities where it exists is also discussing how many public resources should damaging in that it prevents those people be used to supply the means by which from living lives to the fullest. The speakers, individuals can reach self-fulfilment. How as well as the listeners, are hurt by racism should education be provided and, crucially, even if it never leads to physical violence. what should educators teach? A current hot Such arguments can only be made if a topic in this area is that of faith schooling. prior commitment to a narrative of human Should a liberal state provide funds for faith flourishing is in view, but this is precisely schools? Should it allow faith schools at all? the sort of commitment that Millian liberals If so, to what extent should liberal values be cannot make. By being reticent to name enforced in the curriculum of these schools? ‘the good’, Mill is also unable to name ‘the harm’.29 Ultimately, secular liberalism is unable to answer these questions without falling foul 39 Experiments in Living Part II: Liberty

of one or more of its foundational premises. constraint on desire, not as providing It is in the face of intractable problems such the space in which free actions are given as these that liberal freedom is traditionally their basic rationality.32 For this reason, all extended only as a matter of expanding the government is a product of the consent of options of choice and no further. Positively, individuals – it is ultimately self-imposed by the liberal state provides the infrastructure society, and not by divine fiat. and resources (for schools, hospitals and the like) that form the context of the choice Thus it is true that with liberalism there is – but it refrains from helping its citizens to ‘an absence of a positive unifying core for choose well. Here, the negative freedom its social philosophy.’33 As we have seen ensured by the state comes into play. People and shall discuss further, this absence may choose rightly or wrongly – all that has contributed to very real and very matters is that they are free to choose. bad problems. However, considering the historical and present dangers posed by By coming back to ‘choice’ as the end goal regimes enforcing their vision of ‘the good’ we can see that in the battle to keep both upon everyone else, liberalism may well turn senses of freedom intact, in fact it is the out to be the least worse option. Certainly it autonomous freedom of self-realisation that is not necessary to liberalism that it must be ultimately must win out in liberalism. inimical to Christianity. Indeed, Christians often make the best liberals. Christian Because freedom is granted to the communities can exist and thrive in liberal sphere of conscience that does no societies. Due to their non-reconcilable harm to others, liberals have sought views of liberty, however, what they cannot to allow others to be free to live out expect is that modern liberal societies will their own beliefs rather than impose be Christian. their view on them. This has led to the compartmentalisation of life under This need not pose an insurmountable liberalism: the separation of faith from problem for the modern, politically liberal the public square, and the secularisation Christian. That no society can be made in confining religion to one sphere and to be Christian, and indeed, that there is role in life.30 no such thing as a Christian society, only Christians within society, is itself a deep Rather than enforcing a public life guided Christian truth which is related to the by Christian (or other religious) principles, category of ‘the individual’. The origins and liberals tend to look to impersonal ‘society’ role of ‘the individual’ for liberalism and for itself as a ‘spontaneous and self-adjusting Christianity is the topic of the next part of order’.31 Liberalism sees authority as a this essay. 40 Experiments in Living Part II: Liberty

Notes 20 See for example Nietzsche, F. Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 1885.

1 The distinction is commonplace. See for example 21 Eagleton, T. Reason, Faith and Revolution, Yale Giddings, P. ‘The Political Parties and Biblical University Press, 2009, 16. Principles’, in Chaplin, J. (ed.) Politics and the Parties, 22 Pannenberg, W. Christian Spirituality, Westminster IVP, 1992. Press, 1983, 89–91. 2 Patterson, O. Freedom: Freedom in the Making of 23 Trigg, R. Free to Believe? Religious Freedom in a Western Culture, I.B. Taurus, 1991, x. Liberal Society, Theos, 2010, 23. Trigg’s and other’s 3 Ibid., xvi. intimation along these lines is discussed below and in the following part. 4 Grayling, A.C. Towards the Light, Bloomsbury, 2007, 8. 24 See Ignatieff, M. The Needs of Strangers, Viking, 1985. 5 The literature is extensive. See for example Baukham, R. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, W.B. Eerdmans, 2006. 25 Weber, M. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Unwin University Books, 1970, 182. 6 Barth, K. Humanity of God, Collins, 1971, 67. 26 Ibid., 183. Other commentators who see the 7 Ibid., 68. destructive force of liberalism which has sloughed off 8 Bentley Hart, D. Atheist Delusions: The Christian its religious reference include Demant, V.A. Religion Revolution and its Fashionable Enemies, Yale and the Decline of Capitalism, Scribners, 1952; University Press, 2009, 24. Heimman, E. Reason and Faith in Modern Society, Wesleyan University Press, 1961. 9 Hauerwas, S. After Christendom, Abingdon Press, 27 1999, 53. Mott, S.C. Perspective, 132. 28 10 Kant, I. What is Enlightenment? 1784. Mill, J.S. On Liberty, Oxford University Press, 1998, 14. 11 See for example Paul Marshall’s introduction in The 29 Orange Book and David Boyle’s essay ‘Liberalism and John Gray commends Mill on this point for being a the Search for Meaning’ in Reinventing the State. ‘proto-value-pluralist’; however, Gray also recognises that Mill’s attempt to affirm the variegated forms of 12 Mott, S.C. A Christian Perspective on Political human life at the same time as promoting one form of Thought, OUP, 1993, 132; Song, R. Christianity and rational consensus liberalism leads to the foundering Liberal Society, Oxford University Press, 2006, 40, 41. of his project. See Gray’s introduction to On Liberty, OUP, 1998 and his essay ‘Modus Vivendi’ in Anatomy, 13 Bentley Hart, D. Delusions, 5. 47–48. 14 Ibid., 21. 30 Mott, S.C. Perspective, 144. 15 See Gray, J. ‘Liberalism: An Autopsy’ in Gray’s 31 Ibid., 132. See also Wolin, S. Politics and Vision, Anatomy: Selected Writings, Allen Lane, 2009. Princeton University Press, 1960. 16 Nietzsche, F. The Anti-Christ, 1895, §18. 32 Song, R. Christianity, 217. 17 Ibid., §16. 33 Mott, S.C. Perspective, 144. 18 Nietzsche, F. The Gay Science, §125. 19 Nietzsche, F. The Will to Power, posthumous 1901.

41 Part III: The Individual

Part III: The Individual

If liberty is the pudding of liberalism, then ‘the individual’ is the proof. Neither ‘freedom from’ nor ‘freedom for’ make sense unless they flower in the life of an actual person. For liberalism, freedom is only secondarily related to groups, governments and nations. First and foremost, freedom belongs to individual human beings.

In the first section we briefly examine the modern liberalism is to sustain its belief in place of the ‘individual’ in liberal and Liberal the inviolable rights of the human being Democrat thought. Liberal beliefs in the when this belief is explicitly divorced from unassailable dignity, freedom and rights of the context of Christianity. To this end we the individual owe much of their articulation will examine the track record of liberal to Christian theology. The modern sense society on this front. of the importance of the human being is intimately connected to historical Christian Protecting and promoting the individual is thought. Two key areas in particular are very important for the Liberal Democrats. worthy of attention. With ‘the individual’ Liberal commentator Simon Titely speaks for always in view, we will look at Christian many in the Party when he writes: reflection on the meaning and importance of faith. Then we will consider the ethical We need a truly liberal definition of implications of the neighbour. In both cases, individual freedom. Real liberation is the vision for Christian life and practice about meeting the innate human need shares much with hallmarks of political for ‘agency’, the ability to influence and liberalism. change the world in which one lives. Power must be devolved so that people That there are multiple points of connection may take real and meaningful choices between modern liberalism and Christianity about their lives, not merely consumer should come as no surprise. We will see how choices.1 it is that Christianity’s high emphasis on individual identity led to the invention of David Laws is proud of the fact that his what it now means to be a person, and to Party speaks up for the freedom of the have individual human rights at all. It is not individual: at all certain, however, how well equipped 42 Part III: The Individual

Consistently Liberal Democrats have Critics are right to point out that such an been willing at our conferences (to the environment is, in fact, based on a total frequent despair of our leaders and press fallacy. Humans are social beings and advisors) to discuss and debate difficult cannot exist in a cultural and relational issues involving the rights of minorities, vacuum. However, the liberal value of and we have argued for measures to the individual need not necessarily be secure individual liberty against state individualistic. By prioritising persons over and majority tyranny.2 groups, liberals are not saying that humans do not need association, merely that the Nick Clegg declares: group is not the most important thing about a person. Liberals remind us that it I believe that there is the liberal heritage is individuals who make up society, not the and tradition which is a really great one. other way around. To confuse this relation is It goes right back to the eighteenth ultimately to risk seeing persons as merely century and is a philosophy that believes expendable in the face of ‘development’, in the primacy of the individual, that ‘history’ or ‘culture’. It was this ‘progressive’ power should be dispersed.3 philosophy that underwrote Stalin’s murderous regime and Hitler’s genocidal Cogs and Kings master race. If the extreme end of A common criticism of liberalism is that liberalism is the person as ‘little king’, then the focus on ‘the individual’ can and does the extreme end of fascistic or socialist often lead to an ideology of individualism. ideology is the person as a ‘little cog’ in the Here, the individual is considered to be machinery of nation and state. so paramount that no wider claims of tradition, history or society are seen to Liberal philosophers and politicians who have any purchase. Individualism has no defend the rights of the individual are satisfactory theory of society, advancing often protecting actual persons from being as it does an atomistic vision of the world subsumed into the vague aspirations of the in which persons are supposedly most free state. Abstract ‘social goods’ are not worth and most authentic when they operate in an having if the individual needs and rights of environment of pure self-sufficiency. At the living, breathing persons are trampled as a individualistic end of the liberal spectrum result. In fact, the liberal philosophy of the (Conservative American Republicanism or individual maintains that unless individual Libertarianism, for example) we see that freedom is preserved, there can be no persons effectively become little kings of society at all. Far from promoting selfish their own worlds.4 individualism, liberal political philosophy holds that only free individuals, freely 43 Experiments in Living Part III: The Individual

congregating and cooperating with each points of congruence between the liberal other, can build community. individual and the Christian individual. Christianity too, places a high value The conception of the human agent is on persons relative to groups. The New crucial for liberalism. Many philosophical Testament routinely sets a Christian’s accounts of modern liberal society see the allegiance to a singular and personal self as fundamentally detached from outside God against any competing claims of contingencies, being related to them only allegiance to family, government or nation. through choice and consent. At times this As with liberal politics, this is not to say self-sovereignty effectively takes the form that the Christian individual is necessarily of nihilism (see Part Two). However, every individualistic. The imagery driving the strand of liberalism values and assumes earliest vision of the Christian life is individuality without necessarily endorsing corporate, most notably in Jesus’ preaching individualism. It assumes that individuals of the Kingdom, the establishment of are unique and can be distinguished the ekklesia (the political and religious one from another. It also assumes that association translated as ‘church’) and individuals can be distinguished from ‘an in Paul’s metaphor of different members unindividuated whole’.5 As opposed to rival constituting one body of Christ, to name but conceptions of human identity, this means a few examples. However, just as liberalism that the individual cannot be fully explained logically prioritises individuals before by his relation to the group, a nation, the groups, so too the theology of the earliest Spirit of the Age, a movement of history, a Christians writing in the New Testament stage of cultural development and so on. denies that participation in the Kingdom Furthermore, following Kant, individuals of Heaven relies on prior membership of share universal values that trump particular a certain group, religion or culture. The traits.6 With universalism, features such Christian life is predicated on persons who as race, class, gender and wealth are have been ‘born again’, and who can, as considered irrelevant with respect to rights individuals, confess with their mouths ‘Jesus and the law. By definition, universalism is Lord.’ (John 3.3; Romans 10.9) This has transcends histories and cultures: human nothing to do with their prior class, gender rights, for example, are applicable at all or cultural alignment. ‘There is neither times and in all places. Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.’ The Christian individual (Galatians 3.28 NIV) The Christian vision departs at key places from the liberal vision, as we shall see Furthermore, within Christianity the below. That being said, there are many category of ‘the individual’ is more 44 Experiments in Living Part III: The Individual

important than merely describing the published ripostes from Christian authors proper priority for group formation. A robust keen to distance themselves from their conception of ‘the person’ is crucial for the fideist cousinsand their rationalist enemies. most important aspects of Christian life and These highly educated authors are keen thought. There is a strong line of Christian to demonstrate how evidentially credible, theological tradition that holds that if reasonable and intellectually compelling humans are not essentially free individuals their faith is. then the entire Christian rationale for the Creation of the world is rendered Only a fool or an obtuse critic intentionally incoherent: take away the priority of ignoring basic facts of history could fail to personhood and faith becomes a pointless recognise Christianity’s inextricable role virtue, love for neighbour is undermined, in the formation of modern philosophy, and love for God is impossible. art, science and ethics, or could claim that the religion is utterly bereft of positive The opposite of faith contributions to the life of the mind. Yet Come unto me, all you who that labour even when attackers attack – or defenders and are heavy laden, and I will give you defend – these reasonable contributions, rest. (Matthew 11.28, KJV) they fail to properly cover the gamut of faith. Both sides have departed from the There is a great deal of nonsense written original understanding of the matter at about ‘faith’, both by Christianity’s hand. fashionable despisers and by its champions. A common picture, attacked and defended Historically, Christian thought and theology in equal measure, is of a vision of faith that recognises that ‘faith’ is not a category believes against all odds and against all of the intellect so much as it describes a logic. Sometimes the purest faith is seen to movement of the will. Christian faith is not be that which survives in spite of reason. intellectual assent to a set of propositions Here, ‘faith’ belongs in the category of such as the trinity, atonement or even the the intellect – but only a negative form existence of God; it is instead the expression of intellect whereby questions, evidence of personal trust in an individual person, and doubt are anathema to true faith. namely Jesus, who says ‘come unto me.’ Philosophically, the name for this position is fideism and there are some Christians who Seen in its cultural context, it is significant think and act as if this is what faith is. The that Jesus’ oft repeated phrase ‘believe in angry army of rational secularists who decry me’ is a phrase with strong socio-political this way of life have picked a worthy target. overtones, commonly associated with other In turn, the bookshelves are groaning with radical leaders and would-be revolutionaries 45 Experiments in Living Part III: The Individual

of the day. In effect Jesus is asking people to make that choice. Indeed, as a matter of to join his social movement. In the New statistics, throughout history the majority Testament, the characters who Jesus asks of people faced with the question of to believe in him are not being asked to following Jesus have chosen not to. Lest believe in six impossible things before any Christian think that this is only because breakfast. They are being asked to leave people have not met ‘the real’ Christ, it is their old lives and to follow a person – to worth remembering that the ranks of those share his vision for a new way of living.7 offended by the demands of faith include People faced with the faith decision are the multitudes of first-hand witnesses being asked to make this sort of choice. contemporary with Jesus as recorded in Jesus’ call to have faith in him is morally the gospels.9 By the same token, how many demanding and culturally audacious, but ranks of people inhabiting the ‘comfortable it is not unreasonable. It is because of this pew’ of their church are able to assent personal and wilful character of faith that to various Christian propositions and yet some Christian commentators have pointed have never faced the possibility of offence out that the opposite of faith is not reason that Jesus poses? There is a strong line of – it is offence.8 Christian thought that holds that unless the individual faces this challenge to the will, Offence may be directed against the they cannot be said to have faith. humbleness of the person asking others to join his movement. Or, one might balk at Historically, it is the contours of this kind the person’s grandiose claims. Or, one might of faith, and a full examination of its recoil at the personal and social implications implications, that has contributed to a of accepting the call to belief. Whichever liberal sense of the individual. Matters of form it takes, ‘offence’ stands opposed to the will cannot be anything other than ‘faith’. Unlike matters of reason, which rely matters of personal decision. Depending on on logical propositions and conclusions the one of whom it is being asked, Christian that must be assented to as a matter of faith may be an issue of obedience, of course, faith is a matter of the will following dependence, of courage or of humility. knowledge of what Jesus asks of us. There Crucially, however, for the Christian it is is nothing obvious or commonsensical also an issue of the free choice of a free about Christian faith, for it constantly skirts individual and, significantly, it is always the edges of social good taste and moral required of each member of the Christian acceptability. It is important to note that group, rather than of the group itself. in the New Testament and subsequent Historically Christians have been at the Christian theology, the person faced with forefront of defending this vision of faith the choice of faith in Jesus is fully free not in the name of the free individual, often 46 Experiments in Living Part III: The Individual

against the state or other Christian groups. The story revolves around the question For example, in the sixteenth century of who is the proper recipient or target radical Anabaptists sought to preserve of social responsibility. The young man free personal faith in the face of culturally who asked Jesus ‘who is my neighbour’ monolithic Lutheranism and Roman was effectively seeking a social loophole. Catholicism. In turn, it was Protestant and Who do we have to spend emotional and Catholic opposition to the domination of material resources on and who are we the atheist state that contributed much allowed to exclude? Who has the right to to the downfall of Communist regimes in make a claim on our care, and who does Eastern Europe in the twentieth century. In not? When we consider the issues that Britain and America, it was the preservation dominate the modern British political of exactly this freedom of individuals conversation – immigration and asylum, to make the choice of faith that drove taxation and wealth redistribution, resource Nonconformism in the nineteenth century allocation in schooling, healthcare, foreign and contributed to the development aid and the like – we see that by no means of modern, political liberalism. Today are the young man’s questions unique to freedom of belief and freedom of religious first century Palestine. association are among the most basic rights valued by the Liberal Democrat party and The sting in the tale that Jesus tells is that informing their policy. ‘the neighbour’ is not someone who can be defined along cultural, religious or ethnic Good and bad neighbours lines. In the first place, the Good Neighbour Who is my neighbour? (Luke 10.29) is the one who sees another person in need and does something about it. In the second Famously, Christian ethics centre around place, one’s ‘neighbours’ are precisely and the double love command to ‘love the Lord simply that – they are the people who your God’ and to ‘love your neighbour as live in proximate relation to each other. yourself’ (see Luke 10.25–37). The social Responsibility and duty for care are not to vision at the heart of Jesus’ parable of be restricted to those who share in abstract the Good Samaritan has now become so notions such as ‘nation’ or ‘religion’ – they commonplace that we tend to forget how apply to the people who live in your actual subversive it was for the first communities and local neighbourhood even if they do who heard it. Yet as the Christian not share your colour, your language or your imagination increasingly fades in the beliefs. modern West, this vision is becoming radical once again. It is just such a vision of real people rather than amorphous, impersonal groups that 47 Experiments in Living Part III: The Individual

underwrites human rights and the liberal concerns. The fact that these accusations value of the individual. Here also we see have purchase says far more about the loss how the Liberal Democrats’ consistent of a lively sense of neighbours as persons commitment to internationalism on the in common culture then it does about the one hand and to localism on the other can legitimacy of liberal ideology. It is a curious be explained along the lines of the Good feature of the present age that the values Neighbour. Neither faceless bureaucracy of neighbourliness are often dismissed nor arbitrary nationalistic divisions should as old-hat, and yet are rarely seen at the be allowed to get in the way of meeting the political and cultural level. Over familiarity actual needs of existing individuals. with the theory of the Good Neighbour has perhaps blinded us to the fact that it Yet modern Western societies, while is almost nowhere put into practice. Yet ‘liberal’ in many ways, have not tended to the suggestion that it is the real persons embrace these values. Since the eighteenth living near us, and not groups or ideas, that and nineteenth centuries nationalism has should form the basic unit of our ethical increasingly come to dominate political concern is a suggestion that Christians and discourse and the source of people’s self- liberals alike can support. Considering the identification. The drift towards relying shallowness, brutality and isolation of the on state solutions to local problems and present age, it is perhaps an old idea whose the relative apathy shown by individuals time has come again. in terms of community participation is also apparent in our cultural history. It is The category of ‘the neighbour’ is social telling that often the two bitterest pills dynamite, threatening to rupture many of electorates are asked to swallow when the habitual and unexamined assumptions considering the Liberal Democrats are the of our society. ‘Neighbourliness’ implies party’s international outlook and its local a concern and responsibility for persons commitments. The popular press distrusts that goes beyond patriotism, nationalism, any party that refuses to thump the tub of impersonal bureaucracy or any other form nationalism, and the political establishment of abstraction that allows individuals to resists the kind of restructuring that would be lost in the crowd. For these reasons, the be required if power was to be decentralised Danish philosopher and social critic Søren to the extent that the Liberal Democrats Kierkegaard considered ‘the neighbour’ to desire. be one of Christianity’s greatest inventions. ‘No one in paganism loved the neighbour; Paradoxically, Liberal Democrats are often no one suspected that he existed.’10 Yet it is dismissed as being insufficiently patriotic not only the neighbour that was invented and overly concerned with petty local by Christianity. The ‘neighbour’ as a social 48 Experiments in Living Part III: The Individual

and political category arose from Christian Casting his eye back to pre-Christian reflections on the ethical demands of Jesus. civilisation, the classicist and Orthodox Likewise, Jesus’ emphasis on trusting him theologian David Bentley Hart suggests rather than being offended at him created that a situation in which faith in God cannot be had apart from a personal and free decision It would not even be implausible to to love, a freedom to which every person argue that our very ability to speak of has equal access. It was attempts to be true ‘persons’ as we do is a consequence of to these two aspects of Christian belief and the revolution in moral sensibility that action that gave rise to the invention of the Christianity brought about. We, after human being as we understand it today, all, employ this word with a splendid and in which liberal ideology places such indiscriminate generosity, applying great stock. it without hesitation to everyone, regardless of social station, race or sex.11 Invention of the person The proposal that Christianity stands on It was not always so. The Latin persona the side of the dignity of every human life is refers to the mask or effigy that powerful not an easy sell to many modern observers. families were allowed to display on their It is not hard to find examples of sexism, graveyard memorials. In Roman law, the racism, homophobia, class bigotry, violence, term ‘person’ was reserved only for those abuse and neglect in the historical and men of enough wealth and social standing present life of the churches. Christians have to have a ‘face’ before the court. Those who certainly not held back when providing their had no face, and thus no legal standing, detractors with ample ammunition with included the majority population of women, which to attack. slaves, the poor, foreigners, criminals and children. Nevertheless, it is an often-overlooked fact of intellectual history that the moral That even (or especially) these people were outrage rightly expressed at each wasted owed special honour and regard was a life is Christian moral outrage. That each complete novelty and offence unknown human life is valuable and important, before the Christian era. The early Church and that every person commands dignity was primarily known for the care that regardless of his or her class, nation Christians took even over the poor, old or status is far from a universal truth and sick members of other religions.12 acknowledged by all peoples everywhere. Christianity forbade the normal practice of exposing unwanted infants (usually girl babies) to hasten their death. It insisted on 49 Experiments in Living Part III: The Individual

providing proper provision and dignity for and with appeals to the Christian conviction women and widows unable to contribute to that a slave, too, was a man and a brother. society. Christian husbands were forbidden to divorce their wives, and the man’s body Society’s attitude towards the role and place was considered to belong to the woman’s. of women has undergone a similar ‘slow- After the institution of Christianity in the burn’ effect. Like an old television taking Empire, Emperors such as Constantine and a while to warm up before the picture Theodosius conformed the law to Christian appears, the fundamentally unique and precepts. All women were to be spared startling Christian values of equality and publicly humiliating and trivial divorces. dignity for all individuals have not enjoyed Those that did divorce were allowed to an instant effect on the cultures they keep their betrothal gifts and dowries and inhabit. Yet here again, the early Christian so were not left destitute. Young girls were era’s institution of rights for women into protected from forced marriages. A man the law should be seen for the innovation who forced his daughter into prostitution that it was. Furthermore, the roles provided lost all legal authority over her. Slave girls by the Church in the Middle Ages brought abused in the same manner were to be opportunities for scholarship, leadership and granted their freedom.13 innovation to women who would otherwise be confined to lives lived entirely defined As a deeply engrained social and economic by men. In Britain, movements such as the construct of every human culture on drive for Temperance and Suffrage, and earth, the practice of slavery and bonded the fight for prostitution reform laws were servitude obviously remained in place for carried through by men and women – often a long time, even in Christianised society. intentionally Christian in their rhetoric and However, as a result of Christianity, the usually Liberal in their politics. attitude towards slaves was considerably altered. For example, slaves were admitted The idea that there is a universal human into the church as full members, and dignity, and that every person is an enjoyed unheard-of positions of leadership. individual who can be wronged against, is The equality of all persons in the name of the bedrock of any modern understanding Christ worked its corrosive effect on this of human rights. If it was not for the longstanding institution as slaves saw Christian ‘invention’ of equal persons in themselves in a new light and slave masters Christ, our account of what it means to be acquired a conscience hitherto unknown in a person at all would be vastly different. history. It should never be forgotten that The Western conscience has been formed by where and when slavery was abolished, it Christian moral ideals. The point, we should was done so for explicitly Christian reasons hasten to add, is not that Christianised 50 Experiments in Living Part III: The Individual

civilisations know nothing of the evils of confidence in humanistic human rights it is sexism, racism or prejudice. The point is that worth questioning the extent to which these we know and feel that these things are evil. laudable goals can be preserved when the Christian framework has been removed. Once a person or a people comes to recognise an evil for what it is, even if Many commentators point out the dangers that evil is then allowed to continue for a and dead ends facing a system of values time, in whole or in part, the most radical which seeks to transcend all human cultures change has already come to pass … For and yet which does not recognise the what it is to be human has been, in some religious value of transcendence. real way, irrevocably altered.14 The British political theologian Luke Humanistic liberalism and Bretherton is realistic about the post- human rights Christian nature of liberal society. At the The Liberal Democrats have positioned same time he is not optimistic that the themselves as champions of individual secular human rights system is an adequate rights.15 According to Nick Clegg, ‘Civil substitute for the ‘concrete social and liberties and individual freedoms are part of political relationships in particular places’ the DNA of the Liberal Democrats.’16 that Christianity can provide.17

The jewel in the liberal crown is the Notwithstanding liberalism’s aim of protection of individuals through the protecting the individual from impersonal preservation of their human rights. Yet forces, a non-transcendent account of while freedom of belief is protected, and human rights tends towards creating an individual’s right to live according complex, abstract well-ordered legal to conscience is defended, the rhetoric systems – in other words, self-referential and of human rights has become resolutely self-perpetuating bureaucracies. In order to secular. Humans are not valuable because avoid placing all the power in the hands of God values them, but because humans a privileged someone, a system is contrived do. The dignity and worth of all persons in which no one has power. Rather than regardless of age, race, sex or station focus on the moral reform and excellence remains a universal ideal, but the historical that makes for an individual’s responsible Christian rationale for this ideal no longer wielding of power, the liberal system relies forms part of the appeal. This of course on a series of checks and balances whereby is as true for the Liberal Democrats as for the system itself generates and safeguards any other modern political party or public the responsibility for human rights. Yet, as body extolling human rights. In the face of Bretherton points out, the problem is that 51 Experiments in Living Part III: The Individual

despite the rhetoric, human rights are not Inhuman humanism actually self-perpetuating or all-pervasive.18 Little did we guess that what has been In the absence of a lively sense of existing called the century of the common man ‘before God’, liberal human rights must would witness as its outstanding feature continually turn towards self-authentication more common men killing each other for its validity. with greater facilities than any other five centuries together in the history of the The political philosopher Roger Trigg says world.23 of Christianity’s contribution to Western politics: ‘A belief in the importance of the The history of the nineteenth and twentieth individual is its product.’19 However, he is centuries has amply demonstrated how, quick to note that without reference to even for states that loudly declare their Christianity it becomes difficult to explain commitment to human rights, the moral why each individual matters equally, or why justifications for the use and limits of we should refrain from imposing our beliefs force against individuals come unstuck on others.20 Likewise, for the Bible Society’s time and again. ‘The social order betrays Parliamentary officer, David Landrum, when in its everyday practice that it does it comes to maintaining human rights, not and cannot believe in the spiritual ‘without the eternal, it is impossible to values it supposedly holds dear.’24 Social argue for the inalienable.’21 For Robert Song, commentators (Christian and non-Christian secular liberalism is led, predictably, to seek alike) are right when they point out the ultimate value only in itself. Without a sense (often literally) fatal disconnect between that there is a greater reality underlying the lofty aims of secular liberal humanism social life or a higher purpose to which and the reality of the liberal states which humans are called, politics is not seen as proclaim them. the transitory and fragmentary thing it actually is. ‘Transcendence is unavoidable: Inevitably, proponents of secular humanism either it will be offered through the religion pit a glowing narrative of enlightened or religions of the society, or it is liable to be progress against the violence and repression established by the demonic absolutisation of religious (read: Christian) society. Yet of the liberal state.’22 if there is no transcendent source of the Good there is no limit to human will. There Are these critics, and others like them, is no way to say that a human project is simply being pessimistic; aggrieved that inherently irrational or abominable. The Christianity is no longer the common sense belief that human nature, free of faith of a more humanistic and rational modern which looks beyond the horizons of the age? self, will naturally make society more just, 52 Experiments in Living Part III: The Individual

more rational and more humane can only objections. In this light it is significant be had with a profound – even intentional that while they disagree about everything - ignorance of the rivers of blood that else, both rapacious capitalism on the have been spilled in the name of ‘human one hand and materialist socialism on the progress’. From the French Revolution other tacitly agree that there is no intrinsic to the nationalist genocides of Europe, worth in individual human lives. For these America and Africa, from the camps of instrumentalist world-views (‘the ends justify Auschwitz to the Cambodian killing fields, the means’), persons are only valuable from the Chinese Cultural Revolution to insofar as they consume, contribute or the Communist regimes of Joseph Stalin, abrogate all individuality for the sake of Nicolae Ceausescu and Enver Hoxha, the the movement or market of which they are modern age has seen, without a doubt, a part. more individual human beings killed and enslaved then ever before. These lives have For the language of human value to been – and continue to be – destroyed have meaning, it must refer to persons not because of Christian doctrine but who are valuable in themselves and not for revolutionary, nationalist, scientific, according to what social function the rational, anti-religious, and humanist person represents. Only a non-instrumental reasons. ‘No cause in history – no religion view can underwrite liberal individualism, or imperial ambition or military adventure freedom and human rights. Here, humanist – has destroyed more lives with more liberalism is in trouble. It wants to oppose confident enthusiasm than the cause of the the de-humanising utilitarianism of the “brotherhood of man”.’25 materialists, but has disallowed the reality that underwrites its own framework. Can The challenge facing all liberal movements one hold to the intrinsic worth of all humans such as the Liberal Democrats which have if you do not allow for the divine purpose assumed the mantle of valuing human that constitutes that worth? Liberalism rights is not that humans do not have rights. which wants to be both atheistic and It is that secular liberalism is incoherent in transcendent will, ultimately, only be able articulating these rights, and for that reason to cling to a shallow version of humanist is inevitably and demonstrably impotent principles. Nationalism, cultural imperialism, when it comes to defending these rights communism and capitalistic cultures of against concerted, anti-liberal attack.26 immediate gratification actively seek, and at their best countenance, the death of It is not only nationalism or other culturally thousands so that their chosen way of life imperialistic movements that have been might continue undisturbed. A programme able to easily steamroll over liberal of universal humanism that truly values 53 Experiments in Living Part III: The Individual

individual persons requires more than a all that serious Liberals should need to see rhetoric of freedom and dignity that melts to know that Christianity is a friend to the away in the face of rival utilitarian and liberal vision of humanity. The creation of a deeply inhuman powers. social space in which free associations are at liberty to work out the implications of The onus is on secular liberalism to their faith and other visions of the good life demonstrate that its vision of human is another key tenet of liberal thought. Here, rights is robust enough to withstand fairness, tolerance, and the enabling of these forces. So far, arguably, its track ‘social experiments’ come to the fore. These record has not been good enough to instil all fall under the rubric of our final pillar of much confidence. For its part, Christian liberalism, and thus it is to ‘equality’ that we liberalism already has a strong intellectual now turn. tradition of grounding human worth in the person’s freedom for flourishing according Notes to the divine purpose of love and faith. Occasionally in history, this theory has even 1 Titely, S. ‘Me Myself and I’ in Brack, D., Grayson R. et al (eds.) Reinventing the State: Social Liberalism for the worked itself out in practice to astonishing 21st Century, Politico’s, 2007, 88. effect, as with the recognition of the 2 Laws, D. ‘Reclaiming Liberalism’ in Marshall, P. and humanity of women and children in the Laws, D. (eds.) The Orange Book, Profile Books, 2004, fourth and fifth centuries, the abolition of 23. slavery in the eighteenth and nineteenth 3 Nick Clegg writing in The Guardian, 1 May 2010. centuries, civil rights in the twentieth 4 See the discussion of ‘sovereign choosers’ in the and opposition to communist regimes in previous part. the twenty-first. That secular liberalism 5 Song, R. Christianity and Liberal Society, Oxford should not and cannot be forced to accept University Press, 2006, 41. Christianity is obvious. In any case, such 6 The process of making universal moral decisions compulsion is anathema both to liberalism without allowing for particular exceptions forms the and to authentic Christian faith. Liberal core of Kant’s ‘Categorical Imperative’ in Critique of Christians will never impose faith on Practical Reason, 1788. others, yet conversely it is absurd that some 7 On the fundamentally social and political nature strands of modern liberalism, including of ‘belief’ in Jesus in its first century context see Wright, N.T. Jesus and the Victory of God, SPCK, 1996, factions within the Liberal Democrat party, 258–264. actively oppose Christian civic participation. 8 On this point see especially Kierkegaard, S. Training The success of Christianity at creating in Christianity, 1848, trans. H. Hong and E. Hong, communities of flourishing, well-socialised Princeton University Press, 1981 and Bonhoeffer, D. individuals, coupled with the repeated The Cost of Discipleship, 1937, trans. R.H. Fuller, SCM, 1966. failure of secularism to provide the same, is 54 Experiments in Living Part III: The Individual

9 It is worth noting that it is immediately after he 24 Eagleton, T. Reason, Faith and Revolution, Yale provides a list of miracles and acts of social justice University Press, 2009, 46. that he has enacted that Jesus is compelled to 25 Bentley Hart, D. Delusions, 107. For an extensive say ‘Blessed is he who is not offended at me.’ See list of numbers killed in wars and atrocities see the Luke 7.18–23. Online Historical Atlas maintained by the researcher 10 Kierkegaard, S. Works of Love, 1847, trans. H. Hong and librarian Michael White: users.erols.com/ and E. Hong, Princeton University Press: 1998, 53. mwhite28/20centry.htm. 11 Bentley Hart, D. Atheist Delusions: The Christian 26 One of the most articulate critics of the humanistic Revolution and its Fashionable Enemies, Yale attempt to ground human rights is the American University Press, 2009, 167. political philosopher Nicholas Wolterstorff. See especially his Justice: Rights and Wrongs, Princeton 12 The North African plague in 251–266 saw University Press, 2007. Christians staying to serve the ill of Carthage and Alexandria, often at the loss of their own lives. Even hostile pagan historians such as Ammianus Marcellinus commended Christians for these and other acts. Similar stories can be found in the city priests who stayed behind to minister to the victims of the Black Death in the Middle ages, and the many modern examples of Christian agencies providing the main or only source of aid to areas struck by disaster and war. 13 These are all features of the Code of Emperor Theodosius in the fifth century. 14 Bentley Hart, D. Delusions, 176. 15 ‘The Liberal Democrats are the only party committed to defending our most important rights.’ libdems.org.uk/civil_liberties.aspx. See also the Liberal Democrat’s proposed ‘Freedom Bill’: www. freedom.libdems.org.uk. 16 Nick Clegg writing in The Guardian, 13 April 2010. 17 Bretherton, L. Christianity and Contemporary Politics, Wiley-Blackwell, 2010, 49. 18 Ibid., 48. 19 Trigg, R. Free to Believe? Religious Freedom in a Liberal Society, Theos, 2010, 26. 20 Ibid., 26. 21 Landrum, D. ‘The Secular Mind and Human Rights Discourse’ in The Bible in Transmission, Winter 2007. 22 Song, R. Christianity, 220. 23 Winston Churchill, MIT Mid-Century Convocation Address, 31 March 1949.

55 Part IV: Equality

Part IV: Equality

The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity … We reject all prejudice and discrimination based upon race, colour, religion, age, disability, sex or sexual orientation and oppose all forms of entrenched privilege and inequality … 1

In this part we will look at the form and logic of ‘liberty’ as an essential human role that equality takes for both liberalism right leads inexorably to a statement that and Christianity. Again, there are close such liberty must exist for all persons connections between the two; however, it equally, regardless of their ability or social remains problematic to attempt a direct standing. Practically, people are not truly translation from the Christian sense free unless and until they operate on a level of ‘equality’ and ‘justice’ to a liberal playing field. Education, health, economics understanding of the same values. As well – inequality in these areas has tangible as socio-economic equality, other key facets effects on a person’s ability to choose his or to be considered in this part are fairness her own path in life and is thus a grievous and tolerance. The subject of ‘tolerance’ is offence against liberal values. often seen as a feature of freedom. For our purposes, however, it also fits under the Yet, historically for the Liberal parties, rubric of equality. Within liberal society, ‘equality’ has played second fiddle to other the liberty to pursue one’s own goals and liberal tenets, most notably ‘freedom’ associate freely with others is a good and ‘individuality’. The reason is not that applies to every individual equally. hard to fathom. Equal distribution of Tolerance is as treasured as it is troublesome wealth, information or any other social for modern liberal societies, and the ‘good’ necessarily entails some state section concludes by examining different intervention and regulation over individual’s approaches to tolerating ‘experiments in lives and choices. Furthermore, the rise living’ equal to all. of socialism and communism saw the rhetoric of ‘equality’ become associated In Liberalism, equality is a fundamental with the political left. Liberal champions constituent of liberty. Philosophically, the of innovation, free markets and personal 56 Part IV: Equality

responsibility understandably shied away party manifestos and campaign literature from the Big State solutions implied by the for the 2010 election confirm the trend.5 language of egalitarianism. In reality there is no substantial difference The Liberal Democrat’s ambiguous in Liberal party thinking between the relationship to equality is occasionally made principle of equality and the principle explicit, as in the influential 2002 policy of fairness. In theory and in practice the paper It’s About Freedom: two terms are interchangeable. What is important is not the word used as much as We place the principle of freedom the idea underlying the word. As we shall above the principle of equality … when see, this idea of equality/fairness is central equality is pursued as a political goal, it for liberalism and for the Liberal Democrats, is invariably a failure, and the result is to despite any reticence they might show in limit liberty and reduce the potential for their rhetoric. Liberal thinkers recognise that diversity.2 equality remains crucial to any coherent account of liberalism. The challenge is to Liberal Democrat MP Sarah Teather speaks find ways to talk about an equality that is for many when she writes: ‘Liberals have not coercive but liberal. never been preoccupied with equality per se, but rather preventing extreme levels of Socio-economic equality inequality that limit freedom’.3 Those who pursue a fair society see that one that is truly fair cannot be bought at Another indicator of the Liberal take on the price of suppressing the freedoms and the issue is the party’s linguistic emphasis diversity of individuals. And those who on fairness. One Liberal Democrat MP want people to be truly and positively interviewed for this present piece suggested free to maximise their potential realise that equality language has overtones of that a passive and non-interventionist conformity, hence the preference for the state is highly unlikely to achieve such a rhetoric of ‘fairness’. The MP Steve Webb, radical and liberating outcome.6 for example, has written entire pieces on Liberal approaches to fairness with scarcely Liberals justify wealth-distribution policies a mention of the E-word.4 At the same time, on the basis that a measure of socio- however, his subject matter deals with economic equality is the ground from exactly the same material, statistics and which all other liberal goods can grow. arguments that others in the field use when Liberalism is opposed to the conformity and discussing equality and inequality. Recent centralised planning implied by socialistic egalitarianism, and thus liberals are always 57 Experiments in Living Part IV: Equality

walking the fine line between ensuring Liberals recognise that some inequalities will a level playing field for all and allowing necessarily exist in a liberal society. Choices personal freedom. made in life do not lead all people to the same financial bracket or social standing. To It is, in fact, freedom that is thought to this extent, the presence of some inequality best justify liberal, and Liberal Democrat, of wealth or power in a society is evidence approaches to equality. Massive inequality that the liberal system is working correctly. and socio-economic deprivation is the main What is a problem is the systematic way that people’s freedom is inhibited. inequality that prevents a person’s hard The real-life impact of economic disparity work or initiative from earning its rightful on individual people’s lives is significant.7 reward. Thus, Vince Cable can write that Unlike in communism, economic parity ‘one aim should be to temper extremes of across the board is not the liberal goal – income and wealth inequality’ while at the personal liberty is the goal. Only insofar same time not decrying all wealth inequality as state intervention allows for individual as an evil in itself.10 For Cable, as for other flourishing do liberals accept laws and liberals, it is the size of the difference regulations promoting economic equality. between rich and poor that is the problem. The ever-widening gap between the ‘haves’ The approach to liberal equality is not and the ‘have-nots’ in our Western societies to create (or re-create) the centralised creates a downward spiral for many people state. Liberal governments are ideally which no amount of personal discipline, decentralised, with a system that rewards decision-making or hard work will break. personal responsibility taken in leadership Conversely, a fortunate minority experience or initiative in business. Liberal equality material wealth, educational opportunities does not seek to punish those who work and cultural comfort through no action or harder, or better, than their peers, but contribution of their own. they do wish to establish a system of equal access to resources. As key Liberal According to a strong strand of liberal Democrat policy officer (and party historian) thought, inherited success is no success at Duncan Brack notes: ‘the redistribution of all. Certain human rights should not apply resources needed to reduce inequality must, only to those lucky enough to have been to the greatest extent possible, equalise born into a particular social stratum. The conditions (or endowments or birthrights), same impulse that drove nineteenth century while respecting choices.’8 This is what lies Liberals to combat privilege is at work behind the traditional liberal discourse that today in the Liberal Democratic emphasis speaks of ‘equality of opportunity’ rather on tax reform and a review of death duties, than ‘equality of outcome’.9 for example. Liberals are concerned with 58 Experiments in Living Part IV: Equality

breaking the inequality that stems from the incentive and the opportunity for the unequal distribution of endowments, anyone in the society to rise to the top. while at the same time creating a system that redistributes resources while preserving Tolerance and equality choice and incentive. Another feature of Rawls’ influential liberal philosophy is that it is not just concerned As Duncan Brack argues, this problem has with socio-economic inequality. Justice been the main occupation of the leading as fairness also attacks racial, sexual and lights of liberal thought.11 For example, the religious discrimination. For all liberals, the American liberal philosopher John Rawls personal freedoms enabled by economic envisions a society in which institutions do equality are meaningless if they are not not provide lifelong advantages to some allowed to flourish in the cultural climate classes at the expense of others. Rawls as well. Liberal societies are those in sees justice ‘as fairness’ and proposes an which individuals are able to make choices ideal liberal society in which economic and in thought, speech and deed. Here, the social advantages for the better off are rhetoric of ‘preference’, ‘personal lifestyle’ justified only if they benefit the worst off. 12 and ‘tolerance’ comes to the fore. In So, for example, a system in which people general, liberals find it easier to talk about earned their riches (say in a free market) equality in terms of tolerance than about is justifiable only if the poor in this system economic re-distribution. are better off than they would be in a more rigidly egalitarian world. Crucially, the For its cultural critics, including many in the Rawlsian poor will also have the opportunity Church, the liberal emphasis on tolerance is to change their lot. Rawls argues that sometimes construed as shallow lenience, people who inherit their wealth or natural a mealy-mouthed position that is unable to talents are not morally deserving of these stand up to real social evils. Yet the roots of advantages. Thus, the inequalities that liberal tolerance run deep and are a crucial exist in such a system cannot be vindicated component of any society in which members on the basis that the persons ‘at the top’ of minority groups (such as Christians) are somehow deserved their position. The social allowed to thrive in peace and security. set-up can only be justified if it can be shown that the system is necessary for the Far from passively avoiding conflict, good of everyone in it, especially the least liberal tolerance arose from an aggressive fortunate. Rawlsian liberalism emphasises protection of the equal rights of every personal and political liberty rather than person in the face of arbitrary power. socially engineered wealth distribution, Tolerance means that an individual cannot because it is these goods that best provide be treated differently by government or 59 Experiments in Living Part IV: Equality

institutional powers as a result of that That rational basis for a liberal society is individual’s social status, cultural affiliation best expressed through legal structures – or personal conscience. Historically, tolerance is litigious and rights based, not this right has not been wrested easily moral or metaphysical. According to the from the claws of the privileged and liberal legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin, established. ‘Equality before the law’ is the cry for toleration raised by women, Liberalism commands tolerance; it ethnic minorities, the poor, the working commands, for example, that political and the middle classes, not to mention decisions about what citizens should Nonconformists and other religious groups be forced to do or prevented from amongst many others presently enjoying doing must be made on grounds that peace and prosperity in the modern liberal are neutral among the competing age. convictions about good and bad lives that different members of the community The historical roots of liberal antagonism might hold.14 against established classes and churches has given liberal tolerance an intentionally In his essay ‘Justice as Fairness: Political not un-theoretical air. The practice of tolerance Metaphysical’, Rawls argues how it is that can be a way for diametrically opposed doctrines of ‘the good’ or of ‘the self’ or of dogmatic groups to coexist peacefully religion are irrelevant to political liberalism. in the same society without at the same time having to reach an ideological [Justice as fairness] presents itself not as agreement. For liberalism, tolerance is the a conception of justice that is true, but practice of guaranteeing access for all to one that can serve as a basis of informed the public space while at the same time and willing political agreement between refraining from making ethical, religious citizens viewed as free and equal or philosophical judgements about the persons.15 groups and individuals in that space. It is, first and foremost, a pragmatic, rather than Rawls, it should be noted, is not an arch- idealistic, endeavour. ‘Political liberalism anti-religionist. It is simply that the political, begins from the facts of difference, and legal space provided by liberalism (and, seeks to find a rational basis for a tolerant, liberals would argue, the space necessary if liberal society which can accommodate that our modern, multicultural Western societies difference without resorting to metaphysical are going to survive) is one that cannot foundations.’13 Hence the legalistic and begin with reference to religion. eminently practical emphasis of the phrase ‘equality before the law’. 60 Experiments in Living Part IV: Equality

We try to avoid disputed philosophical as equality. Note, for example, the effort to well as disputed religious questions … not equalize access to the democratic process because these questions are unimportant in which the senior Liberal Democrat MP [but because] the only alternative to a Simon Hughes has argued in favour of principle of toleration is the autocratic giving the three equalities commissions use of state power.16 (Commission for Racial Equality, the Disability Rights Commission and the Equal In other words, the liberal state claims Opportunities Commission) ‘greater powers to be studiously agnostic (rather than to require equal opportunities in political antagonistic) about different conceptions parties.’18 of religion, the good life, or the source of human value.17 We have already seen Another example can be found in the vexed previously how this works itself out in liberal area of faith schools. After a heated debate conceptions of freedom and the individual at the March 2009 Spring Conference, that differ from Christian conceptions of the the Liberal Democrats eventually thrashed same. Here, equality and tolerance support out a policy on faith schools. Alone the necessary liberal decision not to make from the other mainstream parties, the decisions about flourishing, ultimate ends Liberal Democrats decided to challenge and absolute truths. Liberal tolerance claims unnecessary discriminatory school practices to refrain from making moral judgements. in admissions and employment. The theme However, in theory it is more than amenable running through the policy is that, just to allowing people within liberal societies as faith schools themselves are a product to make the judgements themselves, based of a tolerant society, toleration is to be on public reasoning and communally agreed legally enforced in the schools as well. terms of discourse. While recognising the demand for and the existence of faith schools, the Liberal policy Where there are disagreements, then the nevertheless ramps up the legal requirement only solution is to thrash it out in public – in for publicly funded religious schools to be a place of reasoned argument, dispassionate inclusive in their admissions, teaching and rules and impersonal judgements. The employment practices. Schools would not liberal turn to the law courts as the rightful be allowed to select pupils on religious home of toleration is no accident. Some grounds. They would be required to teach things are too important to be left to about other beliefs in a balanced way, and private good will. they would be legally compelled to end their opt-out from equalities legislation for staff The Liberal Democrats are readily litigious in faith schools, except those responsible for when it comes to ensuring social justice and religious instruction. 61 Experiments in Living Part IV: Equality

We recognise that all teachers (whatever social justice, which is usually expressed their beliefs) have a duty to uphold the by Liberals and by Christians in terms of ethos of the school, but we believe that equality. The ground is well covered in no teacher should run the risk of having Christian literature, and in some quarters their career options narrowed on the it is considered commonplace. Andrew basis of their religious beliefs or their Bradstock sums up the line of thought well lifestyle. Nor should pupils be denied in two points: access to the best teachers as a result of discrimination on the basis of religion. The first is that the biblical teaching that Liberal Democrats have always opposed all people are of equal value because the exemption that exists in employment they are created in God’s image places law allowing faith schools to reserve a certain demands upon communities proportion of posts for teachers who with respect to social and economic profess a specific religion.19 arrangements – specifically, to ensure that none of their members is unable to More recently, Nick Clegg earned headlines meet their basic needs in terms of food, when, in an interview by Johann Hari for shelter and security. And second, that Attitude magazine, he expressed support there are sound biblical and sociological for legal intervention on school policy reasons for governments consciously concerning homosexuality. to pursue policies aimed not simply at relieving poverty but at narrowing the Q: So you would have it as a legal differential between ‘rich’ and ‘poor’ in requirement that schools would have to society.21 teach that homosexuality is normal and harmless and something that happens? Biblical material undergirding the Christian principle of social justice via equality is A: Yes – and crucially faith schools indeed strong. From the start in the book should have a requirement to have an of Genesis all human beings derive equal anti-homophobic bullying policy at their worth for all, male and female, bear the school.20 stamp of God’s image. The Old Testament is remarkably consistent in tracing the Christian equality logical implications of this basic equality for Just as with ‘freedom’ and ‘the individual’, matters of economic disparity: the relationship between Christian equality and Liberal equality is strong in theory He has shown you, O man, what is and, often, in practice. Perhaps the most good; and what does the Lord require straightforward link is the concern for of you but to do justly, to love mercy 62 Experiments in Living Part IV: Equality

and to walk humbly with your God? Give to him who asks you, and from him (Micah 6.8, NKJV) who wants to borrow from you do not turn away (Matthew 5.42, NRSV). The rich are not to exploit the poor. God is the champion and protector of those In this light, it is surely significant that Jesus who are at the margins of society, and is recorded as beginning his public ministry woe betide those who would treat them by directly aligning his mission with Isaiah’s with injustice. Along with the Psalms, the Jubilee declaration: prophetic voices of Isaiah and Amos are especially known for their excoriation of The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because those who would ‘trample upon the needy’ He has anointed me to preach the gospel (Amos 8.4). to the poor. He has sent me to heal the broken hearted, to proclaim liberty to Commentators are quick to point out that the captives and recovery of sight to the Hebrew Scripture’s concern for the the blind, to set at liberty those who are poor does not stop at merely encouraging oppressed: to proclaim the acceptable the rich to be responsible. Many of the year of the Lord (Luke 4.18–19, NKJV). laws of the Old Testament are aimed at constructing the just distribution of land Perhaps the clearest expression of New and commodities, and deconstructing Testament equality is the example of Jesus those systems that allow for the oppressive the ‘Word become flesh’ (John 1). The accumulation of wealth.22 doctrine of the incarnation is the central, most explosive doctrine in the Christian Principles of equality and material equity canon: one of its main implications for in the New Testament are largely focused ethics is its supreme vote of confidence on the community of the followers of in the life of the body and its assumption Christ and the Kingdom of Heaven where that because God became a human, all ‘the last will be first, and the first last.’ humanity might gain access to God. Christ (Matthew 20.16). In short, favouritism in giving of his flesh to all so that all might live the Church is forbidden because we are all is the locus of celebration of the Eucharist. one in Christ (see James 2; Colossians 3). Everyone kneels equally at the communion Famously, for the earliest Christians this rail. Everyone partakes of the bread and egalitarian status worked itself out in the wine if they are in Christ. sharing of possessions and equal access to wealth.23 The Church’s attitude to material Therefore, when you come together wealth had wider implications. to eat, wait for one another. (1 Corinthians 11.33, NRSV) 63 Experiments in Living Part IV: Equality

Christianity pro liberalism should support the Liberal Democrats as ‘a It is not surprising then that Christian statement of our rejection of the shallow Liberals such as Simon Hughes and Steve and amoral values’ which lead to avoidable Webb should be so comfortable finding suffering in society.28 connections between their politics and their religion. The MP Tim Farron, another Farron, Webb, Hughes and others’ leading Christian Liberal Democrat, uses commitment to Christianity and to social equality and justice language to encourage justice is not in question. What can be all Christians to vote for his party. In usefully, and – in keeping with the engaging his essay ‘Why Vote Liberal Democrat’24 and modest tone of Farron’s piece – humbly Farron marks out a space between the put to these Liberals is the question of how so-called ‘social gospel’ that ignores human much modern liberalism itself underwrites individual sin and need for salvation on the shallow and amoral values they the one hand and those like the ‘Christian so rightfully deplore. Furthermore, the Right’ in America who ignore social economic system within which we all must justice in favour of personal (read: sexual) abide and which undoubtedly brings much morality issues. For Farron, ‘Both of these suffering to the poor is itself clearly also a positions are deviations from the truth.’25 product of ‘liberal’ business practice and Instead, Farron explicitly refers to the Old free-market ideology. Testament prophetic tradition, such as the book of Amos, which holds both personal Christianity contra liberalism accountability and social concern together, The vast gap does not just exist between and argues that it is this passion for social rich and poor. For all its original influence justice that motivates the Liberal party. on liberalism, the difference between ‘Liberal Democrats understand that real Christian and liberal understanding of freedom must be underpinned by fairness in fairness is widening. As liberalism has our economy and by equality of opportunity entered into its modern phase, sloughing in education.’26 Farron decries the economic off explicit reference to its Christian decisions that have been made in the past underpinnings, the mis-match between 25 years and which have led only to an the Christian demand for social justice immoral disparity between rich and poor. and the reality of liberal society is all the These decisions have not been made in more marked. It may well be the case that some supposed ‘neutral’ moral vacuum, Christian engagement with politics is best but instead have ‘been based on a very done within some sort of liberal context; particular set of values: principally greed however, the discrepancy between the and materialism.’27 Farron ends his appeal ‘equality’ of liberalism and the ‘equality’ of by humbly suggesting that Christians Christianity is not insignificant. 64 Experiments in Living Part IV: Equality

Tim Farron touches upon one aspect of this communion of equals gathering round in discrepancy when he tries to put distance Eucharistic worship of the God-man is one between his position and the position which is primarily and exclusively applied that seeks social transformation without to the Church. There is no expectation that personal salvation. Christians can agree the life of the born-again will be understood with liberalism that personal responsibility or welcomed by those who do not proclaim and renewal is needed for social justice. Yet Christ. Indeed, the opposite situation is true, the Christian critic can put it to optimistic with the overwhelming expectation being liberals such as Farron that liberalism alone that the Christian’s life will be a source of is not sufficient to produce the goods. confusion, antagonism and offence to their Along with liberalism, Christians recognise neighbours. that social change requires a change in human individuals. Yet Christians know that It is possible to see some strands of social before their communities can experience liberalism in the same light that Jesus saw the positive equality of renewed persons the Pharisees. Like those zealous proponents living for each other, each person must of morality (recounted in Matthew 23.1– first face the negative equal truth that ‘all 12) liberals are keen to lay down the have sinned and fall short of the glory of requirement of personal responsibility, if God’ (Romans 3.23). This is the theological not regeneration. Yet, like the Pharisees of reasoning behind Reinhold Niebuhr’s old, social liberalism does not, and cannot, criticism of liberal exhortations for social provide the resources necessary to help justice. It’s not that society does not need individuals bear the burden. It is along these justice, it is that the liberals ‘have no lines that S. C. Mott mounts a critique of understanding … of the agony of rebirth liberal equality. He agrees that the liberal required if the individual would turn from commitment to the ‘weak’ is a major point self-love to love.’29 of congruence with Christian ethics. Yet the problem with liberalism is not its statement It is problematic to attempt a straight of justice, but instead the context of that translation from the biblical requirements justice.30 ‘In liberalism the strategy for of equality and justice to the liberal change is often weighted heavily toward understandings of the same. This is equality of opportunity … [yet] Equality especially true for Christians who view of opportunity bears too heavily upon the even the Old Testament’s strictures for weak.’ The biblical demand for justice is social justice through the lens of Christ left uncompleted ‘within the inadequacies and the people of God as defined by his of the competitive economic world’.31 The followers. Significantly, the New Testament’s point is that simply removing the barriers radical egalitarianism and its vision for a to inequality is not sufficient. Inequality 65 Experiments in Living Part IV: Equality

damages people, and it is not enough to tell God, the enduring justice that is the year damaged people that now they are free as of the Lord’s favour. It is the social justice if this were the panacea. As for the ‘strong’ that breaks out ‘on earth as in heaven’ in or the materially well off, more is needed numerous places and in numerous times than a general sense of ‘social justice’. The in history when Christians have obeyed content to this idea, what it entails and Christ, often (if not always) against their what it requires, is not simple, natural or a own, worldly best interests. Politics cannot matter of course. simply extract this social justice from its Christian context and expect that it will The reality proposed by the Christian survive intact. The shallowness and brutality view of the human condition is that of the modern age, heady with its own justice is not a matter of common sense. humanistic rhetoric, is testament to the Scripture teaches that, left to our own failure of this particular experiment. By devices, humans invariably choose paths of the same token, Christians should not be selfishness and oppression – a fact readily surprised when their values and activities born out by socio-historical observation. are misunderstood or misrepresented by the If justice is truly to come about, then wider society. individuals must be renewed through the transformation of their wills and minds. The heart of difference between the two What is more, this will not happen just ‘equalities’ is that the ground of liberal anywhere. ‘Society’ is simply too vague and equality is the shared capacities of every too impersonal a body in which to effect human for reason, communication and meaningful change. action, an anthropological claim that must work itself out as equality before the law Here, we see that the Christian context (it cannot work itself out in any other way). for justice is ecclesiological before it is The ground of Christian equality is equality sociological. As Stanley Hauerwas argues, before God. Such a sense of equality ‘the Church’s social task is first of all its naturally lends itself to the enshrinement willingness to be a community formed by of certain laws in order protect people, a language the world does not share.’32 but people and their laws are not seen as The Church’s mission is to be faithful to the beginning and end of equality. The Christ and only insofar as Christ is her upshot is that the focus of liberal equality aim will justice flow. Thereis equality for is necessarily human rights based. Its those re-made in Christ’s image, and this horizons are understandably restricted equality does lead to a radical and lasting to those of humanity. Yet, despite much ethic of justice for the weak, the poor and of liberal culture’s claim to the opposite, the marginalised. This is the Kingdom of these rights are far from self-evident or 66 Experiments in Living Part IV: Equality

self-perpetuating. Since these rights, by in everyday life in numerous examples. definition, apply to all people in all places, From international aid agencies to prisons, they admit of no distinctions and are thus homeless shelters to youth clubs, marriage impersonal. The focus of Christian equality, counselling to hospice care, Christians of course, is precisely in the opposite routinely demonstrate their willingness direction. While many Christians (certainly and ability to take on the tasks of social all Liberal ones) would affirm some version work and justice that they talk about. Yet of human rights, their scope encompasses more and more, these activities are being more than the merely human. To talk of carried out against a background of cultural equality before God is to talk of equal liberalism which enforces the dichotomy access to God. And to talk of access to between ‘private’ belief’ and ‘public’ God is to talk of mankind’s need for God: action. This public/private division is one man’s sinfulness and God’s love. In order to of the most enduring features of modern prevent flying off into vague abstraction, social liberalism. It is also one of its most however, the Christian story roots talk of incoherent. all-encompassing divine love into concrete expression. ‘God’ is not an unknown force of Public vs. private general well being, some sort of sentimental Because freedom is granted to the cosmic gas. Ultimately, to talk Christianly sphere of conscience that does no of God’s love is to talk of God meeting each harm to others, liberals have sought individual and unique person in the person to allow others to be free to live out of Christ. Within the scope of Christian their own beliefs rather than impose theology and anthropology, only from this their view on them. This has led to the revolutionary personal encounter with compartmentalisation of life under Christ, which every person is equally free liberalism: the separation of faith from to accept or reject, will meaningful social the public square, and the secularisation justice result. in confining religion to one sphere and role in life.33 Already we are sliding into platitudinous territory. At its best, Christian theology The idea that one’s private religious beliefs resists academic abstraction for its own should not intrude into the sphere of public sake. Even if one has to pull back for life is well known and accepted amongst a time into theory, eventually it must secular liberal theorists and is a common needs work itself out in praxis and the mantra amongst many liberal political life of the actual Church. The social and practitioners. individual transformations offered by Christian theology work themselves out 67 Experiments in Living Part IV: Equality

The distinction is a direct result of the and the structures of the law. Hence the nature of humanistic liberalism and its need invention of the two spheres: That which to enshrine in law only that which can be cannot be justified in terms and language publicly communicated and agreed upon. understood and accepted by all members of In a liberal society, individuals are supposed the public is relegated to the private. This to be protected from coercion at the is not to say that the liberal settlement is hands of arbitrary power, be it state, class explicitly hostile to religion; it merely holds or religion. As we have seen, in the fight that in a modern society, no one doctrine against coercive tradition, liberal freedom (of any kind) can form the basis for political cannot be had by appealing to another decisions involving the use of ‘coercive rival tradition: this too, is ultimately no less public power’, that is, rules of law that arbitrary and potentially coercive than the everyone must abide by.35 current oppressive power. This is why Mott can rightly point out that with liberalism, The main problem is that this differentiation there is ‘an absence of a positive unifying is based on a category mistake. Religion, core for its social philosophy.’34 To put it and certainly Christianity, is simply not more bluntly, modern liberals are prevented a ‘private’ affair. Saying that Christianity from appealing to Christianity when trying is not merely private is not the same to describe the source and ground of that as promoting a theocracy in which all freedom which applies to all people equally. laws are ‘Christian’ laws. Religions are No less than other religions or ideological not private because they are social and world-views, Christianity is exclusive and, historical entities, worked out in cultures to the extent that individuals choose not and groups. The content of religion – its to subscribe or participate – excluding. It books, its centres of learning, its families makes truth claims that are not compatible and organisations – are all products of with the truth claims of other world-views. and contributors to the common life. It makes statements about the nature of Furthermore, most personal decisions creation, the purpose of humanity and made for religious reasons have public the person of Christ that are not accepted ramifications. This is obviously the case or understood by everyone. The common when Christian individuals decide to ground that the liberal project needs to find associate together in aid of a common in order to ground its sense of freedom, cause, whether this be to abolish slavery, individuality and equality cannot be found start a soup-kitchen or run a day-care in Christian doctrine. It must be found in a centre. It is also the case for so-called sphere of life that, theoretically, is open to individual acts. The woman who Christianly all regardless of religion or creed. It must decides not to pursue her career through be found in public reasoning, compromise dishonest and unkind means and the man 68 Experiments in Living Part IV: Equality

who chooses to enter a monastery are freedom is to be found in submission to both making personal decisions with wider Christ, to name but a few crazy facets of the implications. By refusing to go along with Christian story. From the start, Christians ‘the way of the world’, these individuals have been resigned to the fact that, not become public signs of a different way to only will people not understand them – they live. The difference might be attractive, or may actively hate them (e.g. Matthew 5.11– it might be offensive, but it remains part 12). of the warp and woof of social interaction all the same. Examples of these types, and To participate in liberal society on countless more, are played out every day in liberalism’s terms, religions must be able to every level of society. Christianity might be translate their ‘goods’ into language that all personal, but it is never, simply, private.36 can accept or understand. These goods then become a matter of ‘public reason’ open to The theoretical public-private dichotomy so all and in accord with liberal conceptions necessary to the dominant form of political of justice and equality. So it is that liberals liberalism we have been considering does (like Rawls) can claim that they are not not actually work itself out in practice. This necessarily opposed to religious ideas. It is poses problems for liberal political regimes, simply that the ideas in and of themselves and also for the Christian groups to which cannot be accepted as justification of these regimes play host. public law until they have been translated into public language, a process Bretherton As the British political theologian Luke describes as that in which ‘the liberal legal- Bretherton points out, political liberalism constitutional order sets the boundaries is specifically predicated upon compromise within which politics takes place.’38 The and public reason. Generating consensus is problem is that this does not reflect an a crucial value for liberal public discourse. accurate picture of full-blooded Christianity, Thus it is a sign of disrespect against and thus distorts both Christianity and the individual freedom for a group to attempt political regimes with which it must deal. to justify their public actions in terms that The liberal system in effect demands wilful not every citizen can reasonably endorse.37 dishonesty on behalf of its participants, Yet this is not a process always valued or requiring them to hide the true reasons for aided or abetted by Christian discourse. their actions. This serves no one well. Christians are used to acting in mysterious and counter-intuitive ways. Indeed, In the laudable drive for fairness and Christianity is predicated upon the gospel tolerance, the liberal settlement attempts to of a topsy-turvy Kingdom in which the first iron out any wrinkle in the public discourse will be last, enemies are to be loved, and that might cause conflict. This, for example, 69 Experiments in Living Part IV: Equality

is the engine driving Rawlsian liberalism comment that his purported atheism made (amongst others). Yet honest disagreement him more tolerant, Clegg was quick to over important issues is inevitable and even correct the interviewer: welcome if robust political solutions are to be found. ‘What we need is a politics that Well, without taking a great swerve into can live with deep plurality over questions my theological views, I’m not an arch- of ultimate meaning and can encompass the atheist, I’m much more confused than fact that many communities and traditions that. I have great admiration for people contribute to the common good – each in of faith and I sometimes think it would their own way.’39 In short, the goal cannot be great to have faith. It can be a great be to banish all disagreement; that is a animating thing, but it can also drive chimera. Instead the goal must be to learn people to very negative actions too. My how to disagree. Excluding all meaningful wife is religious and our children have difference of outlook and opinion (by been brought up in her religion so I don’t relegating religion to the private sphere, come at this with an anti-religious axe to say) is not going to help in these matters, grind. There’s absolutely no doubt in my and is certainly not going to aid tolerance. mind that a religious impulse can be a True toleration of other groups can only force for good, for mutual understanding, occur if those groups are allowed to tell us for tolerance, for generosity, for love. But what they actually care about and why. in the hands of people with a prejudice it legitimises deeply regressive, unpleasant Experimental liberalism views. […] I see it [religion] in a much There is more than one way to be a liberal. more nuanced way. It’s a whole lot Sometimes the streams of liberal tolerance more complex than saying if you have get crossed. Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal faith you are susceptible to tolerating Democrats, provides one example of this. homophobia than otherwise.40 We have already seen above the Attitude magazine interview in which he tacitly There is scope within the liberal tradition agreed with a litigious liberalism requiring for a political and social settlement that all schools to teach the same, publicly recognizes the nuances and complications agreed and therefore ‘tolerant’ message on of religion in a modern, pluralist society. homosexuality. By raising his children as Catholic, and by acknowledging the social goods that Curiously, another type of ‘tolerant’ liberal come from allowing the Christian impulse is in evidence later in the same interview to flourish, Clegg is here drawing from a (tellingly left out of the excerpts made line of liberal thought which emphasises available to the wider media). When led to 70 Experiments in Living Part IV: Equality

‘experimentation’ rather than ‘litigation’ as is a ‘regime’ that emphasises the plural the best expression of tolerance. nature of the groups jostling together within one culture. Pluralist regimes of tolerance, It is something like this difference between for example, would allow groups equally to two strands of liberalism that the British determine their own internal employment political theorist Jonathan Chaplin describes practices, even if this means going against in terms of competing liberal ‘regimes of the majority society’s sense of what is right. tolerance’. ‘An individualistic regime of Chaplin points out that both approaches are tolerance favours equal treatment among working with a liberal spirit of tolerance and individuals, while a pluralistic regime offers fairness. ‘We cannot resolve which regime equal treatment among associations.’41 The is the more “tolerant” merely by gazing trick, as Chaplin rightly points out, is to at the abstract concepts of “tolerance” or know which side our liberal society should “equality”’.43 skew toward in its valuation of equality of tolerance. Chaplin observes that, in our The tradition of protecting group modern age, the conflicts arising between tolerance has a long and rich Liberal people of religious affiliation and those with tradition in the United Kingdom. This is none largely arise as a result of a ‘regime the liberalism of social experimentation change’ within liberal society. A society seen in Nonconformist Christian political in which independent civil associations agitation and also in the humanist political co-existed side-by-side in difference philosophy of J. S. Mill. Mill’s famous is morphing into one in which liberal dictum was that liberty necessarily involves governments attempt to apply ‘universal ‘experiments in living’: public principles’ upon civil society.42 These principles are rights-based and As it is useful that while mankind are individualistic, in that identical treatment imperfect there should be different is expected for each individual across the opinions, so is it that there should be social spectrum, and regardless of group different experiments of living; that free association. So, for example, Christian scope should be given to varieties of organisations may face legal punitive character, short of injury to others; and measures if they do not employ non- that the worth of different modes of life Christian applicants. The problem is that should be proved practically, when any such a position, in the name of tolerance, one thinks fit to try them.44 soon ends up intolerantly trampling over the rights of people who wish to associate Here, tolerance is not conceived as bland in groups that reflect their values or will or coercive agreement in a hypothetical promote their shared vision. The alternative public sphere, but instead equal freedom 71 Experiments in Living Part IV: Equality

for groups to work out their differing visions itself to grow complacent and common of the ‘good life’. The liberal state refrains place. from making judgements, not by adopting a falsely neutral stance, but instead by Being the Church allowing the social experiments to run their But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, course. peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. In Mill’s time, the dominant culture was not Against such things there is no law. only Christianised, it was Anglicanised. True (Galatians 5.22–23) freedom and tolerance here meant granting groups with alternative social visions the Rather than expending many resources into space in which to thrive, or perish, as the preserving its status as the favoured and case may be. The success of the humanist dominant cultural force, it seems sensible, way of life, or the Nonconformist practice if not expedient, for Christians in the of religion, should not depend on the UK to devote their time and energy into patronising goodwill of the Anglican being faithful to Jesus’ original call to do establishment. Conversely, any failure that something new by following him and his these groups experience should not be example. because of stifling or coercion by an outside force. Religious communities are likely to be practically relevant in the long run to the Today, demonstrably, the boot is on the degree that they do no first ask what is other foot. In England, the population of either practical or relevant, but instead committed Christians (of any denomination) concentrate on their own intratextual is much smaller than the population of outlooks and forms of life.46 those with no religion.45 For good or for ill, Christianity is no longer the shared Do Christians think that their way of life consensus of the wider population. The leads to the healthiest families? Then Christian way of life and its justifications are perhaps they should spend less time not common sense. Indeed, many Christians, fighting the marriages of others and prove following the likes of a Kierkegaard, a it by living well as Christian families. Do Bonheoffer or a Hauerwas would say Christians believe that they care best for that whenever Christianity becomes the the lost, the depressed, the lonely? Then dominant culture it stops being Christian. leave off decrying so-called politically Christianity’s present position in society as correct social services and get on with the a startling oddity is merely a long overdue job. Does Christian wisdom provide insights corrective to a religion that has allowed into literature, philosophy, science and 72 Experiments in Living Part IV: Equality

history? Then write fewer complaint letters Christianity has given liberalism these gifts. to the editor and write more books instead. In turn, the Church in the United Kingdom At all times, however, the question for the finds itself – once again – an experimental Christian living in a pluralist, liberal culture organisation, a minority group made up of is not ‘what are other groups doing’ but individuals freely choosing to act according instead, ‘is the way we live together as true to their values. In such a context, and in to Christ as it could be?’ such a world where Christians elsewhere are routinely killed and persecuted for their In this way, Christians are simply attempting faith, British Christians can thank the Lord to do what Christians are supposed to do that they live among liberals. best, a process that Stanley Hauerwas often refers to as ‘the church being the church.’ Notes

I am challenging the very idea that the 1 Preamble to the Liberal Democrat Federal Constitution. primary goal of Christian social ethics should be an attempt to make the world 2 Liberal Democrat Policy Paper 50, It’s About Freedom, Liberal Democrats, 2002. more peaceable or just. Rather, the first social ethical task of the church is to be 3 Teather, S. ‘Education’ in Astle, J. and Laws, D. et al (eds.) Britain After Blair, Profile, 2006, 112. the church – the servant community. 4 Such a claim may well sound self-serving See Webb, S. ‘Free to be fair or fair to be free?’ in Margo, J. (ed.) Beyond Liberty, ippr, 2007. until we remember that that which makes 5 the church the church is its faithful ‘Fairness’ was the watchword for the Liberal Democrats campaign in 2010, who ran under the manifestation of the peaceable kingdom strap line ‘Building a Fairer Britain’. See for example in the world. As such, the church does not ‘Why Vote Liberal Democrat?’ published by the Liberal have a social ethic; the church is a social Democrat Christian Forum, 2010. ethic.47 6 Webb, S. ‘Free’, 136. 7 There is copious material tracking the social effects No less than any other ideological outlook, of inequality. See for example Julia Margo: ‘a range liberalism has proven itself at times to be of recent research has highlighted the pernicious impact of structural inequality on societies, pointing inhuman, tyrannous, brutal, and idolatrous. to its various implications for crime rates, health and It is not Christianity’s task to baptise happiness of population.’ She cites Kahn, H. et al, this form of culture tout court or bend to ‘Are geographic regions with high income inequality associated with risk of abdominal weight gain?’ in each of its whims. At the same time, the Social Science and Medicine 47, 1998, 1–6; Wilkinson, liberal ‘person’, liberal ‘freedom’ and liberal R. Unhealthy Societies: The Afflictions of Inequality, ‘equality’ have grown from Christianity. Routledge, 1996; Pearce, N. and Paxton, W. (eds.) Affinity is to be expected, as uneasy as Social Justice: Building a Fairer Britain, ippr, 2005; Layard, R. Happiness: Lessons from a New Science, that affinity might be from time to time. 73 Experiments in Living Part IV: Equality

Penguin, 2005. See also Wilkinson, R. and Pickett, 21 Bradstock, A. ‘Government and Equality’ in Spencer, K. The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost N. and Chaplin, J. (eds.) God and Government, SPCK Always Do Better, Allen Lane, 2009. and Theos, 2009, 182. 8 Brack, D. ‘Equality Matters’ in Brack, D., Grayson, R.S. 22 See for example the division of land in Numbers et al (eds.) Reinventing the State Politico’s, 2007, 27. 26 and especially the ‘Jubilee’ laws in Leviticus 25. Modern applications of these ancient principles can 9 It is worth noting that Duncan Brack explicitly be found in the work of the Jubilee Centre, such as opposes this formulation, arguing instead for equality Schluter, M. and Ashcroft, J. (eds.) Jubilee Manifesto, of outcomes as well as opportunities. By his own IVP, 2005. acknowledgment this position puts him in a minority of Liberal writers. 23 See Acts 4 and the care that Christian communities evidently showed for each other in 2 Corinthians 8. 10 Cable, V. ‘The Economy’, in Britain After Blair, 94. Emphasis added. 24 Farron, T. ‘Why Vote Liberal Democrat’ in Lynas, R. (ed.) Votewise Now! SPCK, 2009. 11 Brack, D. ‘Equality’, 28. Brack names especially Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously, Harvard 25 Ibid., 108. University Press, 1978 and John Rawls. 26 Ibid., 109. 12 Rawls, J. A Theory of Justice, Harvard University 27 Ibid., 110. Press, 1971, revised 1999; Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1995. 28 Ibid., 110. 13 Hampsher-Monk, I. ‘Toleration, the Moral Will 29 Niebuhr, R. ‘Reunion of the Church through the and the Justification of Liberalism’ in Horton, J. and renewal of the churches’ in Christianity and Crisis 7, Mendus, S. (eds.) Toleration, Identity and Difference, 1947, 5–7. Palgrave, 1999, 17. 30 Mott, S.C. A Christian Perspective on Political 14 Dworkin, R. ‘Foundations of Liberal Equality’ in The Thought, OUP, 1993, 142. Tanner Lectures on Human Values, University of Utah 31 Press, 1990, 13. Ibid., 143. 32 15 Rawls, J. ‘Justice as Fairness’ in Philosophy and Hauerwas, S. Against the Nations: War and Survival Public Affairs 14, 1985, 223–251, 230. in a Liberal Society, University of Notre Dame Press, 1992, 11. 16 Ibid., 231. 33 Mott, S.C. Perspective, 144. 17 See Kernohan, A. Liberalism, Equality, and Cultural 34 Oppression, Cambridge University Press, 1998, 2ff. Ibid., 144 35 18 Hughes, S. ‘Democracy’ in Britain After Blair, 275. Bretherton, L. Christianity and Contemporary Politics, Wiley-Blackwell, 2010, 46. 19 Liberal Democrat Policy Paper, No. 89 ‘Equity and 36 Excellence’. On this see especially Spencer, N. Neither Private nor Privileged: The Role of Christianity in Britain Today, 20 The interview was published in the January 2010 Theos, 2008. edition of Attitude magazine with a truncated 37 version subsequently appearing in the Independent Bretherton, L. Contemporary, 46. Bretherton newspaper. Note that the quotations here and below here references Rawls, J. Political Liberalism and come from the unpublished and unexpurgated Wolterstorff, N. Religion in the Public Square, Rowman transcript of the interview, provided to the present and Littlefield, 1997. author by the Liberal Democrat party. 38 Ibid., 48.

74 Experiments in Living Part IV: Equality

39 Ibid., 50. 40 Attitude magazine transcript. See note 21. 41 Chaplin, J. ‘Understanding Liberal Regimes of Tolerance’ in Ethics in Brief, 11.6, Spring 2007, 1. 42 Ibid., 2. 43 Ibid., 3. 44 Mill, J.S. On Liberty, Oxford University Press, 1998, chapter III, 63. 45 The best estimate for Sunday church attendance in 2000 was just below 8% of the population. See Brierley P. (ed.) UK Christian Handbook Religious Trends No. 3 – 2002/2003, Christian Research, 2003, table 2.23.4. 46 Lindbeck, G. The Nature of Doctrine, SPCK, 1984, 130. 47 Hauerwas, S. ‘The Servant Community: Christian Social Ethics’ in The Hauerwas Reader, Duke University Press, 2001, 374. Original emphasis.

75 Conclusion

Conclusion

This essay on Christianity, liberalism and the Liberal parties has been undertaken in four main parts.

Part One did not pretend to offer a full ‘free-trade’ liberalism, through to the ‘new account of the history of the Liberals, but liberalism’ of the twentieth century and instead deliberately focused on a few, the ‘social liberalism’ of the twenty-first, foundational figures and movements which Liberal attitudes to the state have adapted put their Christian stamp on subsequent and changed. What remains however is iterations of the party. Radical campaigners a concern for social justice, a healthy in the eighteenth century, and then W. scepticism of institutionalised privilege and E. Gladstone and the Nonconformists in a concern for those minority voices that the nineteenth, made impressions upon majority common sense often threatens to liberalism that remained in spirit, even as quell. We maintain that these Liberal values the fortunes and policies of the parties owe much to Nonconformist Christianity altered in practice. We considered the and to Gladstonian political theology. family of moral attitudes and passionate concern – commonly known as the In the three subsequent parts we took ‘Nonconformist conscience’ – which a closer, Christian, look at the ideas provided the backbone for much of the early underlying liberalism as it appears in our success of the Liberal party, and continues Western, modern, and largely secular to be felt today. Here also we looked at the age. Here, the concern was more with the matter of establishment. We suggested that general and philosophical components of historically, the longstanding Liberal drive liberalism rather than specific government towards church disestablishment would programmes. However, as the Liberal have been best served by paying attention Democrats are the main inheritors and to Christian pastoral and theological guardians of the liberal tradition, we were reasons for disestablishment, rather than always keen to keep an eye on their policies the secular attempts which were perceived and thoughts. The essay identified three as punishing an otherwise well meaning main components of liberalism: freedom, and valid institution. Establishment is the individual and equality. Unsurprisingly, just one of the ways that Christianity is there is congruence and tension between related to the Liberal party. From early Christianity and liberalism on these points. 76 Conclusion

Congruence, because Christianity has with purpose, it allows for meaningful informed all Western ideologies, very much discussion about means and ends, and it including the core principles of liberalism. points towards the horizon of ‘the good’. The Christian contribution to liberalism runs This second sense of freedom, while present deep. Freedom, the individual and equality in Christian life and practice, is not currently all follow the rhetorical and logical contours on the ascent within liberalism and has marked out by Christian thought. Indeed, as not been for some time, with unfortunate we have seen, some argue that if it was not effects on society and the people who live for the Christian revolution in the first and in it. second centuries, we would not today know or enjoy what it is to be ‘free’, to be ‘equal’ The bloody result of humanistic liberalism’s or to have ‘human rights’ at all. powerlessness to preserve humanity in the face of inhuman forces was considered Where there is tension, the problems arise in Part Three on ‘the individual’. The not so much because of liberalism per se, invention of the ‘person’ – the sense that but instead with those strands of secularist everyone has value and a purpose – is one liberalism that seem to wilfully deny or of Christianity’s greatest contributions to oppose the Christian contribution. It is these Western liberalism and the establishment points that bring Christian liberals into of human rights. We saw how individual conflict – or at least an uneasy relation - personhood is crucial for the Christian with secular liberals. In terms of ‘freedom’, understanding of ‘faith’ and for ‘love of the subject of Part Two, this is seen in the neighbour’ – two aspects of Christian emphasis of a form of liberty that stresses doctrine with far-reaching historical and freedom from anything that might fetter social consequences. The problem facing the choice of the inviolable individual. We modern, secular liberalism is that it wants argued that this equation of ‘freedom’ to to keep all the social goods that come from mean ‘doing what one wills’ is a nihilistic Christian personhood, without reference philosophy, unable to provide the peace to the transcendent reality in which the and flourishing that liberals rightly want value of each and every human life is for their society. Such freedom from is ill- rooted. Again, the tension that arises equipped to do the job that modern liberals between Christianity and liberalism is not want it to do, as it cannot differentiate that humans do not have rights; it is that between good and bad, best and worst. in this, the bloodiest and most secular Instead, we suggest that an equally liberal era in history, the jury must still be out on (and theological) sense of freedom for can humanistic liberalism’s ability to defend help to meet the needs of individuals in or justify these rights. The solution, for a liberal society. Here, freedom is aligned Christian liberals, is not to return to an 77 Experiments in Living Conclusion

illiberal and unchristian theocracy. It is – certainly including Christianity – are instead to continue to work for those forms products of a wider society and, in turn, of liberalism in which humans are best set have ramifications that cannot but work up to flourish. This necessarily involves an themselves out in that society. When individual’s right to freely associate with members of faith groups are forced to groups that articulate and promote their pretend to be something that they are distinctive visions for flourishing. not for the sake of public access, then the persons and groups are not being tolerated The fair treatment that a tolerant society for what they actually are. This serves no must afford to different individuals and one well. Secular liberalism’s attempt to their social experiments is the subject of tolerate religion as a private affair is thus Part Four on ‘equality’. Liberals recognise doomed to fail. Indeed, it has been failing that educational, economic and other for some time. forms of social inequality constitute one of the greatest barriers to true human Fortunately, the liberal need not abandon liberty. Christian theology, too, places liberalism in the search for a solution. A a high value on the social justice that rejuvenation of the liberal tradition of comes from equal and fair treatment of all applying tolerance at a group level rather people. Where Christianity and liberalism than a merely individualistic one mitigates diverge is in the source and location of the public/private confusion and marks a that equality. Christian anthropology and return to the original values at the heart of ethics is predicated on the equal value and British liberalism. Here Mill’s ‘experiments access that all persons have before God. for living’ and the Nonconformist Liberal equality is non-transcendent and concern for allowing associations to sink self-referential, grounding equality only or swim according to their own merits in what can be commonly and publicly protected from stifling by the majority or agreed upon. In practice this necessitates institutionalised privilege comes to the a turn to legality and the law. The result fore. The section concludes with a plea to is the creation of the public and private Christians to concentrate less on seeking sphere dichotomy so prevalent in current to wield illiberal and unworkable political liberal culture. What can be communicated influence, and more on simply ‘being the and agreed on by all become public Church’. It looks to the wider liberal society goods: legal building blocks for a liberal to truly grant its Christian individuals free and equal society. What everyone cannot and fair opportunity to do just this very affirm is tolerated (to varying degrees) thing. as a private belief. The problem is that this dichotomy is incoherent. All religions 78 Experiments in Living Conclusion

If anyone cares about the advancement an experiment that has already yielded of humanity, equality and liberty, they astonishing results and which has the would do well to attend to the experiment potential to remain a critical but faithful for living that is the Christian Church – friend to the people of our liberal society.

79 Experiments in Living Bibliography

Bibliography

Barth, K. Humanity of God, Collins, 1971. Douglas, R. Liberals: The History of the Liberal and Liberal Democrat Parties, Hambledon and London, Baukham, R. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, W.B. 2005. Eerdmans, 2006. Dworkin, R. ‘Foundations of Liberal Equality’ in The Bentley Hart, D. Atheist Delusions: The Christian Tanner Lectures on Human Values, University of Utah Revolution and its Fashionable Enemies, Yale Press, 1990. University Press, 2009. Dworkin, R. Taking Rights Seriously, Harvard University Bonhoeffer, D. The Cost of Discipleship, 1937, trans. Press, 1978. R.H. Fuller, SCM, 1966. Eagleton, T. Reason, Faith and Revolution, Yale Boyle, D. ‘Liberalism and the Search for Meaning’ in University Press, 2009. Brack, D., Grayson, R.S. et al (eds.) Reinventing the State, Politico’s, 2007. Farron, T. ‘Why Vote Liberal Democrat’ in Lynas, R. (ed.) Votewise Now! SPCK, 2009. Brack, D. and Randall, E. (eds.) Dictionary of Liberal Thought, Politico’s, 2007. Giddings, P. ‘The Political Parties and Biblical Principles’, in Chaplin, J. (ed.) Politics and the Parties, Brack, D. ‘Equality Matters’ in Brack, D., Grayson, R.S. IVP, 1992. et al (eds.) Reinventing the State, Politico’s, 2007. Gladstone, W.E. Gleanings of Past Years, 1879. Bradley, I. The Optimists, Faber & Faber, 1980. Gladstone, W.E. The State in its Relations with the Bradstock, A. ‘Government and Equality’ in Spencer, N. Church, 1841. and Chaplin, J. (eds.) God and Government, SPCK and Theos, 2009. Gray, J. ‘Introduction’ to J.S. Mill’s On Liberty, OUP, 1998. Bretherton, L. Christianity and Contemporary Politics, Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. Gray, J. ‘Liberalism: An Autopsy’ in Gray’s Anatomy: Selected Writings, Allen Lane, 2009. Brierley, P. (ed.) UK Christian Handbook Religious Trends No. 3 - 2002/2003, Christian Research, 2003. Gray, J. ‘Modus Vivendi’ in Gray’s Anatomy: Selected Writings, Allen Lane, 2009. Cable, V. ‘The Economy’, in Astle, J. and Laws, D. et al (eds.) Britain After Blair, Profile, 2006. Grayling, A.C., Towards the Light, Bloomsbury, 2007. Chaplin, J. ‘Understanding Liberal Regimes of Hampsher-Monk, I. ‘Toleration, the Moral Will and the Tolerance’ in Ethics in Brief, 11.6, Spring 2007. Justification of Liberalism’ in Horton, J. and Mendus, S. (eds.) Toleration, Identity and Difference, Palgrave, Churchill, W. MIT Mid-Century Convocation Address, 1999. 31 March 1949. Harrison, B. Drink and the Victorians, Faber & Faber, Cowheard, R. Politics of English Dissent, Epworth, 1971. 1959. Hauerwas, S. After Christendom, Abingdon Press, Demant, V.A. Religion and the Decline of Capitalism, 1999. Scribners, 1952.

80 Experiments in Living Bibliography

Hauerwas, S. Against the Nations: War and Survival Mill, J.S. On Liberty, Oxford University Press, 1998. in a Liberal Society, University of Notre Dame Press, Morely, J. Life of W.E. Gladstone, Edward Lloyd, 1902. 1992. Mott, S.C. A Christian Perspective on Political Thought, Hauerwas, S. ‘The Servant Community: Christian OUP, 1993. Social Ethics’ in The Hauerwas Reader, Duke University Press, 2001. Muir, R. Liberalism and Industry, Towards a Better Social Order, Houghton Mifflin, 1921. Heimman, E. Reason and Faith in Modern Society, Wesleyan University Press, 1961. Niebuhr, R. ‘Reunion of the Church through the renewal of the churches’ in Christianity and Crisis 7, Howarth, D. ‘What is Social Liberalism?’ in Brack, 1947, 5-7. D., Grayson, R.S. et al (eds.) Reinventing the State, Politico’s, 2007. Nietzsche, F. The Anti-Christ, 1895. Hughes, S. ‘Democracy’ in Astle, J. and Laws, D. et al Nietzsche, F. The Gay Science, 1882. (eds.) Britain After Blair, Profile, 2006. Nietzsche, F. Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 1885. Ignatieff, M. The Needs of Strangers, Viking, 1985. Nietzsche, F. The Will to Power, posthumous, 1901. Kant, I. Critique of Practical Reason, 1788. Pannenberg, W. Christian Spirituality, Westminster Kant, I. What is Enlightenment? 1784. Press, 1983. Kernohan, A. Liberalism, Equality, and Cultural Patterson, O. Freedom: Freedom in the Making of Oppression, Cambridge University Press, 1998. Western Culture, I.B. Taurus, 1991. Kierkegaard, S. Training in Christianity, 1848, trans. H. Rawls, J. ‘Justice as Fairness’ in Philosophy and Public Hong and E. Hong, Princeton University Press, 1981. Affairs 14, 1985, 223–251. Kierkegaard, S. Works of Love, 1847, trans. H. Hong Rawls, J. Political Liberalism, Columbia University and E. Hong, Princeton University Press, 1998. Press, 1995. Landrum, D. ‘The Secular Mind and Human Rights Rawls, J. A Theory of Justice, Harvard University Press, Discourse’ in The Bible in Transmission, Winter 2007. 1971, revised 1999. Laws, D. ‘Reclaiming Liberalism’ in Marshall, P. and Read, D. Cobden and Bright, Edward Arnold, 1967. Laws, D. (eds.) The Orange Book, Profile Books, 2004. Robertson-Scott, J.W. The Life and Death of a Liberal Democrat Policy Paper 50, ‘It’s About Newspaper, Methuen, 1952. Freedom’, Liberal Democrats, 2002. Shannon, R. Gladstone 1809–1865, Chapel Hill, 1984. Liberal Democrat Policy Paper No. 89 ‘Equity and Excellence’, Liberal Democrats, 2009. Shannon, R. Gladstone: God and Politics, Continuum, 2008. Lindbeck, G. The Nature of Doctrine, SPCK, 1984. Schluter, M. and Ashcroft, J. (eds.) Jubilee Manifesto, Lorenzo, D.J. ‘Gladstone, Religious Freedom and IVP, 2005. Practical Reasoning’ in History of Political Thought Vol. XXVI. No.1, Spring 2005, 90–119. Song, R. Christianity and Liberal Society, Oxford University Press, 2006. MacCulloch, D. Reformation, Penguin, 2004. Spencer, N. Neither Private nor Privileged: The Role of Marshall, P. ‘Introduction’ in Marshall, P. and Laws, D. Christianity in Britain Today, Theos, 2008. (eds.) The Orange Book, Profile Books, 2004.

81 Experiments in Living

Steed, M. ‘The Liberal Tradition’ in MacIver, D. (ed.) Websites: The Liberal Democrats, Prentice Hall, 1996.

Teather, S. ‘Education’ in Astle, J. and Laws, D. et al ‘Freedom Bill’: freedom.libdems.org.uk. (eds.) Britain After Blair, Profile, 2006. ‘The Liberal Democrats are the only party committed Titely, S. ‘Me Myself and I’ in Brack, D., Grayson, R. et to defending our most important rights.’: al (eds.) Reinventing the State: Social Liberalism for the libdems.org.uk/civil_liberties.aspx. 21st Century, Politico’s, 2007. Liberal Democrat History Group: Trigg, R. Free to Believe? Religious Freedom in a Liberal liberalhistory.org.uk Society, Theos, 2010. Online Historical Atlas: users.erols.com/ Webb, S. ‘Free to be fair or fair to be free?’ in Margo, J. mwhite28/20centry.htm. (ed.) Beyond Liberty, ippr, 2007. Social Liberal Forum: socialliberal.net Weber, M. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Unwin University Books, 1970. Whiteley, P., Seyd, P. and Billinghurst, A. Third Force Politics: Liberal Democrats at the Grassroots, Oxford University Press, 2006. ‘Why Vote Liberal Democrat?’ published by the Liberal Democrat Christian Forum, 2010. Whyte, F. Life of W.T. Stead, Jonathan Cape, 1925. Wilkinson, R. and Pickett, K. The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, Allen Lane, 2009. Wolin, S. Politics and Vision, Princeton University Press, 1960. Wolterstorff, N. Justice: Rights and Wrongs, Princeton University Press, 2007. Wolterstorff, N. Religion in the Public Square, Rowman and Littlefield, 1997. Wright, N.T. Jesus and the Victory of God, SPCK, 1996.

82 Experiments in Living