In the long-run a secular state cannot avoid moral drift
October 1994
by Rt Rev John Freeman Perry
given at Conservative Party Conference

Warns Rt Rev John Perry in a speech to CCF

· The Church must be involved in political matters

· Disestablishment would cause the state to become more, rather than less, secular

· The moral health of the nation is under threat - the Church must speak up for enduring moral values.

*****

The Church is involved in politics

I welcome the opportunity to be with you, and I bring the greetings of the Church in this Diocese. I have been asked to speak on the theme of "Church and The State", and frequently when this combination is mentioned, the words of Jesus, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that God's", are quoted.

At first sight this would seen to be a divinely authoritative prescription for the division of powers, leaving the politician to get on with politics and the religious to get on with religion. By so doing the one would not step on the toes of the other. But that conveniently ignores the fact that the cleverest part of Jesus' answer to the question, "Is it lawful to pay tribute to Caesar or not?" lay in his request, "Show me a penny".

His questioners' ability to produce one was evidence that they were already involved in Caesar's world. It was a sign that they, like all of us, were inevitably mixed up in it and often compromised by it. Of course we have to render to Caesar the things that are his, because, like it or not, we are part of Caesar's world. But it is only when this is understood that Jesus' punch line becomes significant, "Render to God the things that are God's".

And that means everything, even the things that appear to be Caesar's. In the final analysis all of us are answerable to God. The responsibilities that you and I both have, in our different spheres, are there on trust. We exercise them not only on behalf of our leaders, our constituencies, communities and churches, but supremely we are accountable to God. It is a solemn, awesome, thought. It helps to bring our respective roles into clear perspective.

I won't forget being interviewed for a TV programme after my consecration as a Bishop in Westminster Abbey six years ago, in which I was asked the question, "Would I be involved in politics?" "Yes - when it might be appropriate" - was my reply. Not because I'm a meddling or crusading bishop, but because politics is about people, communities and institutions, about issues of justice and the quality of life, whether at national or local level.

The Church and its leaders must, of necessity, if we are true to the Gospel, be concerned about the whole of life, and especially for the disadvantaged. People matter to God, and so they must to us. They are not pawns in a game. Human relationships flourish or diminish in the context and conditions in which they are set. These are influenced and fashioned, for good or ill, by economic and social realities and forces.

Each political party has its own manifesto. The Church, too has a clear manifesto - the one with which Jesus Christ launched his ministry in the Synagogue in Nazareth: "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favour". (Luke 4:8).

It was a manifesto that was spelt out in more detail in what we know as the Sermon on the Mount, and was put into action during the course of Jesus' ministry, healing, delivering people from the powers of evil, comforting the bereaved, confronting injustice, caring for those on the margins of society and finally sticking his neck out to such an extent that the authorities, both political and religious, of the day had had enough and brought about his apparent downfall.

But God has the last say. Resurrection followed crucifixion, and empowered by the Holy Spirit the early Christians, and those who followed in their train down the centuries, have sought to be obedient to that same manifesto. Inevitably, it has meant that Church and State are often intertwined, sometimes in conflict, but in constructive accord too, enabling both to serve the nation and its highest good.

Disestablishment

I want to touch on two current issues of concern, which overlap. In the first place, one that rears its head at regular intervals. That of the position and implication for the Church of England as the Established Church in the land. The relationship of the Church and State, came sharply into focus at the last meeting of the General Synod at York in July, when Bishop Colin Buchanan's Private Member's Motion was debated. It ran as follows:

"That this Synod request the Standing Committee to bring forward proposals for the lifting of direct State control upon: (a) The Appointment of Diocesan Bishops; (b) Legislation coming from this Synod". Bishop Buchanan was careful not to use the word "disestablishment" during the course of his speech. Choosing rather, to concentrate on the two issues.

The first, as to "Whether the final powers over the doctrine, discipline and orders of the Church of England ought to rest with our secular four-nation Westminster Parliament at all".

The second issue concerned the appointment of Diocesan Bishops and the role of the Prime Minister, to whom two names are sent by the Crown Appointments Commission when a vacancy occurs in a Diocese. "The issue is simply whether, before God, such power of choice of our chief pastors ought to reside with the Prime Minister at all". (Bishop Buchanan). Various Amendments were also submitted, both the Amendments and the Motion were defeated.

The Archbishop of York, Dr. John Habgood, has proved a weighty and persuasive advocate of retaining the Establishment tie between the Church of England and the State. He argues the case in two notable books "Church and Nation in a Secular Age" (1983) and "Making Sense" (1993). Both were collections of his sermons, addresses and lectures.

In the General Synod debate he raised a number of incisive questions in response to Bishop Buchanan's opening speech. Questions that ask about what responsibility Christians have towards the secular world. "What is the moral and spiritual basis of the State? Does it need one? Can it have one? Does the present drift towards pluralism affect the answer one gives?"

To these I would want to give a fairly robust answer: "That there is still enough mileage in the commitment of this nation to its Christian heritage for it be foolish for us to undermine this still further. I do not want a secular State. I do not believe other-faith communities want a secular State. I do not believe that a secular State can, in the long run, avoid moral drift. I would be ashamed simply to walk away from our history and say to the legislators: 'You get on with it'.

"Rather than, as at present, sitting down beside them with a sense of shared responsibility and political realism, which, at the level of public policy, is one - but only one of our roles as an established Church".

I have little doubt that Bishop Buchanan will continue to fight the corner for disestablishment. His recently published book "Cut the Connection - disestablishment and the Church of England" - presents a lucid and lively case. He has, of course, distinguished support within the House of Commons. Tony Benn, as you will know, has had two shots at trying to introduce a bill for disestablishment (1988 and 1991 - stillborn).

There would undoubtedly be many in the Church and in the Commons who would identify with Trevor Beeson's words "The Church of England in Crisis" (1973): "One thing is certain: If Church and State were starting their lives de novo in the 20th century, no one would dream of suggesting any relationship between the two even remotely resembling that which currently exists, and even if he did no one would dream of taking him seriously".

And writing in The Times (2 December 1989), Clifford Longley put it even more colourfully: "Any Christian Church which still needs official state privilege for support in 1989 has chosen to manacle itself to a spiritual corpse. In their heart, everybody knows it, but no one will admit it". For my own part, I believe that there are bigger issues facing both Church and State at this point in our history.

Although the matter will rumble on, it will hopefully not be preoccupying the attention and energies of the General Synod again for some time. On balance, I would align myself with the main thrust of the arguments for retaining at present the establishment link between the Church of England and the State, and to see how the responsibilities and opportunities that it brings can be further strengthened.

I have certainly not encountered resentment among leaders from other denominations - rather the reverse. It is seen by many that the establishment link between the Church of England and the State provides an important support and bridge for their own distinctive traditions and ministries.

It is also widely recognised that those Bishops who are in the House of Lords - the "Lords Spiritual" - do make a significant contribution in debates and committees, bringing a Christian perspective on issues including education, overseas aid, Sunday trading, euthanasia, and the needs of coal-mining communities.

If the prior task of the Church is to get on with the job of obeying the Manifesto of Jesus, proclaiming the Good News of his liberating truth and love, we must concentrate our energy on responding to some of the major needs in our society. And this leads me to the second issue that confronts both Church and State with renewed intensity at the moment.

The moral health of the nation

In matters of morality, anything that focuses adversely on the Royal Family, the Government, or the Church, is sure to gain maximum publicity. As we are all aware the moral debate in the media has been fuelled over the last few weeks with the spotlight being turned on all three. With a renewed sense of urgency the moral vacuum, as it has been described, in our society needs to be addressed.

A recent survey among young people revealed that two-thirds of them had no clear understanding of right and wrong. Many said they were looking for moral guidelines. The "Back to Basics" campaign launched by the Government initially held high promise. But it began to fall apart at the seams when there was evident confusion about what the actual basics are that we should be getting back to.

A firm and coherent moral framework, underlining both personal as well as corporate responsibility, was lacking. Having said that, however, there are many in the political arena who will accuse the Church, with some justification on occasions, for its apparent confusion and vacillation on matters of morality. What needs to be remembered is that the buck stops with us all. Trying to apportion blame leads nowhere.

Church-State partnership on moral issues is vital, for we have a common concern for the quality of life, for the dignity of the individual, and for the building up of local communities to trust and hope, freed from fear. Collaboration, not opposition, is essential. And this must embrace the media, those involved in law and order, leaders in industry and commerce, as well as parents, teachers, and social workers.

Somehow we must create and develop a new sense of community in our country. it is ominous that many people now feel that they do not belong; that they have no stake in society, that they do not feel wanted, needed or valued. This was tellingly illustrated in last Saturday evening's TV episode from "Casualty", where two teenage girls, without family and out of care, end up in prostitution.

Bringing up our young

With many young people unable to find employment, we must find ways of providing meaningful purpose to life for them. There are, of course, basic moral values such as personal integrity, self-discipline, generosity, compassion, faithfulness in relationships, and respect for human life and property, that we should all be able to share.

Both home and school have a crucial role to play in helping to inculcate these basic moral values. Partnership is of the essence in helping to create a moral framework in which young people can discover a sense of self--worth and a core of values that have a strong moral basis. The Chief Rabbi, Dr. Sacks, wrote:

"We have abandoned the task of teaching our children a clear sense of right and wrong because we are not sure that there is such a thing and, when they need us, we are not there. We have given our children videos, but not our time. We have given them condoms, but not an ethic of self-restraint. Who can blame them if they translate the relativities of our ethics into the propositions that what is right is what I feel like doing and can get away with?"

Sunday trading

Although there were certain anomalies in the previous legislation regarding Sunday trading, which needed rectifying, it is, I believe, a cause for great regret that the safe-guards for preserving Sunday as one distinctive day in the week, have been largely removed. For the health of our nation, for the balanced rhythm of our lives and the lives of our families, we need a day that is distinctively different.

I believe that this was ordained by God for our good. To provide space for worship, for relaxation, for being with family and friends, for re-creating of body, mind and spirit. By losing its character we are adding to the moral and spiritual confusion that pervades. I also deeply regret the introduction of the National Lottery. The ends do not justify the means - in my view. Incentives to gamble always have a corrosive effect.

Morality is, of course, not just about refraining from doing certain things - it has a strong positive thrust. It is life-giving, not life-restricting. It was Adam Smith, who back in the 18th century wrote: "By acting... (morally) we necessarily pursue the most effectual means for promoting the happiness of mankind, and may therefore be said, in some sense, to co-operate with the Deity. All members of human society stand in need of each other's assistance... where the necessary assistance is reciprocally offered... the society flourishes and is happy".

Christian morality brings with it a call to new way of living, a new way of valuing people (people matter), a new sense of responsibility for what we do and what we fail to do. In this the Church has a key responsibility to go on reminding our society, at every level, of moral absolutes and values that are enduring for each generation.

The Ten Commandments, for example, were not given by God as a burden to be borne, but as a gracious gift, pointing to the way of life of order and fulfilment for society and individuals within it. In the teaching of Jesus, law and grace, commandment and compassion went hand in hand. For the moral values that need to underpin our society have to be seen in the context of the grace and mercy of God revealed fully in Christ.

For the Gospel is about new beginnings, new possibilities. Forgiveness where there has been failure and penitence, hope where there has been despair.