Ceci n'est pas un blog
God and Government
God and Government is an accessible, recent (2009) multi-author book, aimed at stimulating Christian thinking about political issues within the UK context. Recognizing that there are no simple answers, the book's aim is to put forward a set of principles, which can help to form political wisdom in the context of political practice.
There are eight chapters, framed by an introduction and conclusion by the editors (Nick Spencer and Jonathan Chaplin). The brief for each chapter was to respond to the same question: "what, according to Christian theology, is the proper function of government? What, in other words, should those Christians engaged with politics, in whatever capacity, be aiming to achieve through their engagement?" (p.3). The first four chapters focus more on principles, while the last four attempt to spell out the implications more concretely. Here's a summary of the chapters:
1. Nigel Wright, a baptist theologian, sets the ball rolling with his chapter on Government as an ambiguous power. Government is ambiguous: both good and bad, being simultaneously created, fallen, and open to redemption. It has important functions, "to maintain order and to punish wrongdoers" (p.27).
2. Julian Rivers, professor of law, then explores The nature and role of government in the Bible. Government has legitimate authority from God, but it is limited, both "by the existence of other human authorities, in particular, church, family and individual" (p.47) and "by the means at its disposal" (p.48), its power to coerce. Government should itself be under law, diffuse and accountable.
3. The chapter by Tom Wright, former bishop of Durham, is entitled Neither anarchy nor tyranny: Government and the New Testament. It is a call for believers to embrace God's alternative empire, recognizing that the Christian confession that "Jesus is Lord" is in direct opposition to the Roman confession that "Caesar is Lord". Jesus' lordship is the proclamation not just of a new lord, but of a new kind of lordship, shaped by Jesus' crucifixion.
4. The role of government in classical Christian political thought is the subject of the chapter by David McIlroy, a practising barrister. Government, according to this rich tradition, should be accountable, and it should be limited, having the twin aims of promoting the common good and executing just judgment.
5. Nicholas Townsend, lecturer in Christian ethics, then begins to flesh out these principles, in a chapter on Government and social infrastructure. Government should not attempt to implement the common good in its entirety, but should limit itself to providing that social infrastructure which is a prerequisite for the common good. In pursuing this, the role of government is both corrective (remedial) and directive (coordinating).
6. Government, solidarity and subsidiarity is the next chapter, by economist Philip Booth. The principles of solidarity and subsidiarity (as well as the common good) feature prominently in Catholic Social Teaching. Solidarity should characterise our communities, but subsidiarity is taken to mean that government intervention should be a last resort in achieving this.
7. Social commentator Clifford Longley then looks at Government and the common good. The central principle underlying all policies should be a commitment to the common good, which is not the sum of each person's individual goods, but which is the good of society as a whole.
8. Government and equality is the theme for the final chapter by Andrew Bradstock, a professor in faith and politics. The Bible is committed to equality between all people, and this stands against the large and growing inequality in British society. Government has a role to play in narrowing the gap between rich and poor.
A few words from Jonathan Chaplin's conclusion will serve well as a summary:
[T]he book's … hope is that it will spur Christian [political] practitioners on as they seek to forge new, closer and more critical linkages between their theological convictions and their policy commitments—and so to manifest practical Christian political wisdom in ways that promote justice and the common good for a contemporary Britain crying out for much more of both (p.234).
| Print article | This entry was posted by Anthony on 24 Mar 2012 at 12.03 pm, and is filed under Christian. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |


I live in York and I
about 1 year ago
I'm always amused at people saying that the government should be limited (e.g., Chs. 2 and 4). Pretty much everyone, apart from outright totalitarians, believes that! The real question is limited to what; and it is on that point that the arguments break out.
subsidiarity is taken to mean that government intervention should be a last resort in achieving this.
You sound sceptical about this as the meaning of subsidiarity. What would you take it to mean? It is of course fair to note that Booth is an IEA economist, which has its own political point of view. He has written extensively on the coherence of a market liberal point of view with the Roman Catholic teachings on society. Depending on one's point of view, the project is either a storming success, a dismal failure, or a fundamental irrelevance…
about 1 year ago
A lot of people seem to think the role of government extends even to legislating on definitions of words, so it probably isn't wasted breath to point out from time to time that government should be limited... And it would be very refreshing for a politician to say, "I'm not going to promise to fix the whole of society, because the role of government is limited". I did sense a broad agreement among the book's authors on which things would definitely be outside the limits of government (promoting the gospel, say) or inside those limits (law and order), but disagreement about other matters (e.g., state/private education).
There was a difference of view on subsidiarity between Philip Booth and Clifford Longley. Longley interpreted it to be related not to which things government should do and which things should be done by private and voluntary provision, but to be related to where in government structures decisions should be made: as close as possible to the people affected by those decisions. I'm not sure which reading of Catholic Social Teaching is more "correct" (if CST is coherent and explicit enough to say), and gaining an accurate understanding of CST is not high on my list of priorities...
about 1 year ago
Yes, as I was writing that it did occur to me that we have more practical totalitarians than we might care to admit in the democratic west!
On not wanting to understand RCST (I don't allow them to drop the R!): Gosh, you surprise me.
Why do you think I had the third option on my list! However, subsidiarity goes broader than RCST, at least as a concept in governance. For example, it's made its way into the EU's structures, at least in theory. (In practice, as all good civil servants would think, the Commission appears to take the view that very little should be left to political structures lower than the EU.) So it's not a bad concept to get one's head around, even if siting it in RCST isn't a priority.
I wouldn't know about whether Booth's application is technically 'correct', but I think it's quite a legitimate application to say that in fact this works across society as a whole (within and between state and private) and not just within government. It can be used to underpin a defence of professional judgment against micromanagement from bureaucrats in one's own company or institution, for example.
about 1 year ago
Okay, leaving the correct interpretation of RCST to one side, and speaking from my own fledgling convictions, I do think government intervention should be a last resort, should be as light as possible, and implemented as close as possible to the people affected, in order to ensure public justice and allow society as a whole to strive towards the common good. If that's what one means by subsidiarity, then all well and good. And it does sound a useful principle, in the way that you describe it.
A pertinent quote from Julian Rivers under "Governmental power should be diffuse": "The Bible does not present us with a worked-out theory of the separation of powers, but it does provide us with pointers in that direction. Evil is restrained and individuals flourish when authority is diffused. Are we paying too high a price for the efficiency and equity of modern government in terms of national and international centralization?" (p.54)
about 1 year ago
The thought just dawned on me that it is one of life's little ironies that one of the most hierarchical, most centralised religious organisations on the planet should be the one to articulate the idea that central authority should perform a secondary role.
about 1 year ago
Yes, indeed!
about 1 year ago
If anyone's still there... I was pleased to read this on the philosophical basis for the Green Party's policies (emphases added):
I haven't yet worked out whether the Green Party consistently applies this principle to its policies, but it's a good principle anyway.
about 1 year ago
Been trying to get through that book for some time. Long way to go.
But in passing, on that green outline of subsidiarity, I'm not sure it IS a good principle as stated there. Lots of things COULD be decided at a low level, but inconsistency is not always a good thing, any more than uniformity is. I suspect for many issues, there is no one correct level, and any level is a trade-off...
A lot of doctrinaire political philosophy make me nervous.
about 1 year ago
I'm not sure subsidiarity would lead to inconsistency. It could be decided at a lower level to be consistent with what everyone else does. I expect that happens a lot at local council level in the UK, with council X deciding to copy council Y's approach to something. And if inconsistency really is a bad thing (leading to some injustice), that can be prevented by decisions made at a higher level.
Keep reading - it's worth it!