Today, David Cameron’s Christmas message caused more controversy than a call to prayer in a cinema:
….we celebrate the birth of God’s only son, Jesus Christ – the Prince of Peace. As a Christian country, we must remember what his birth represents: peace, mercy, goodwill and, above all, hope. I believe that we should also reflect on the fact that it is because of these important religious roots and Christian values that Britain has been such a successful home to people of all faiths and none.
So, as we come together with our loved ones, in safety and security, let’s think of those who cannot do the same. Let’s give thanks to those who are helping the vulnerable at home and protecting our freedoms abroad. And let me wish everyone in Britain and around the world a very happy and peaceful Christmas. David Cameron, Christmas Message, 2015
The PM’s Christmas card – David and Samantha Cameron return to 10 Downing Street following the 2015 general election pic.twitter.com/jc8I2JpPtq
— UK Prime Minister (@Number10gov) December 11, 2015
The Prime Minister’s claim that Britain is a Christian country has been criticised; his commitment to Christian living has been mocked with the hashtag #YouAin’tNoChristianBruv. But, to some extent, we can agree with the gist of the Prime Minister’s remarks. Although a minority of Britons endorse a Christian confession, one cannot understand the present without understanding the past; one cannot understand British history unless one understands Christianity. Christian ideas and institutions have shaped the country’s path through history. Britain has a Christian heritage; in that sense Britain is a Christian country.
Cameron is also correct that our understanding of religious freedom has its roots in the early Church. There is a tendency to credit Enlightenment figures like John Locke, who wrote in a A Letter Concerning Toleration However, Locke was drawing on Martin Luther’s arguments in On Secular Authority. And Luther, in turn, was drawing on arguments advanced by the Early Church. Tertullian, for example, argued that freedom of religion is a natural right.
It is a privilege of nature that every man should worship according to his own convictions…. It is assuredly no part of religion to compel religion— to which free-will and not force should lead us— the sacrificial victims even being required of a willing mind. You will render no real service to your gods by compelling us to sacrifice. For they can have no desire of offerings from the unwilling.”
Ambrose warned the Emperor Valentinian that “human laws cannot teach us… They usually extort a change from the fearful, but they cannot inspire faith.” Hilary of Poitiers cautioned Constantius that “God does not want unwilling worship, nor does he require a forced repentance.” Isidore of Pelusium’s third epistle advises “since it seems not good to forcibly draw over to the faith those who are gifted with a free will, employ at the proper time conviction and by your life enlighten those who are in darkness”. (3.363)
All of these arguments for religious toleration are based on the metaphysical doctrine that human beings have free-will, and the theological doctrine that divinity is not honoured through forced homage. In fact, Christian theology provides a strong foundation for human rights. We are all in God’s Image; Christ died for everyone without exception; we all carry the mark of original sin. There is no room for boasting or for elitism.
Cameron’s detractors have focused their fire on his decision to cut welfare spending. They are correct to point out that it is part of the Church’s calling to help the poor. It is worth noting that David Cameron agrees that this is an essential part of the Christian gospel and presumably, he would argue that government cuts will help the poor by generating an economic recovery. That remains to be seen. For the moment we would simply wish to remind both Cameron and his critics that there is much more to the Christian faith than charity.
In fact, the true lesson of Christmas – the Christian gospel – is an awful and wonderful message. It is both terrifying and exhilarating: we are loved with infinite passion by a creator who wants to possess us for himself. God demands our personal, unconditional surrender because of who we are and who he is. Moral and spiritual improvement is beside the point: we could never do enough to spiritually or morally merit God’s love. Instead, God the Son became one of us, died, and rose again to pay the moral and spiritual price we could not pay. Take this message away and church would be little more than a noble and beneficial hobby; a worthwhile way to spend one’s weekend, combining a respect for tradition with altruistic ideals.
Christianity -real Christianity- is deeply offensive and not a message that would be popular with any electorate. God’s law demands that we love God with all our hearts and our neighbour as ourselves: a demand that is at once reasonable and unachievable. So the gospel demands we turn to God and trust in Christ. That cannot be reduced to being nice to people and giving 0.7% of GDP to the developing world. We need to be clear: at Saints and Sceptics we do not pray so that citizens will vote in a socially conservative manner; we do not pray that people will merely believe the Christian philosophical worldview. The Sadducees were social conservatives and the devil’s metaphysics are probably quite sound. Instead, we pray that people will personally turn to Christ and trust him for forgiveness and hope. Anything less than that simply isn’t Christian.