ANOTHER VOICE
The latest Blair of the trumpet for Christian socialism
CHARLES MOORE
Mr Blair is carrying on where poor Mr John Smith suddenly left off to confront the Four Last Things on a permanent basis. The rhetorical noises of Christian socialism were seldom more loudly heard in the- Labour Party than under Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock, but both suffered from the disadvantage not only that they did not believe in God, but that they were unwise enough to say so. Mr Smith did believe, with a quiet Scottish confidence, and spoke about Christianity and socialism in a book called Reclaiming the Ground (Spire, £5.99) published six months before his death. The book is a collection of essays made unusual by the fact — in my edition at least — that the same contributions by Chris Smith MP and by Hilary Armstrong MP are printed twice and an advertised offering by Paul Boateng MP is not printed at all, but John Smith's piece appears undamaged, as does the Foreword by Tony Blair.
As is often the way with Mr Blair, he starts with a disclaimer: 'This book is not about using religion to advance a political party, or staking out a claim that one set of religious beliefs are superior to another.' Rather, 'It is a book written by Christians who want to re-unite the ethical code of Christianity with the basic values of demo- cratic socialism.' That phrase 'the ethical code' is the key, because one of the difficul- ties of being a Christian socialist these days is that you are not really supposed to say that Christianity is, metaphysically, true. To do so is to suggest that Islam or Zoroastri- anism or the Age of Aquarius or whatever other creed may be held by some of your constituency activists is untrue. Perhaps with this problem in mind , Mr Tony Benn (Labour's first public Tony) is always care- ful to say that he is not a Christian, but 'a student of the teachings of Jesus'. Mr Blair is a Christian, but that is now called a 'lifestyle choice' and is a purely private matter. The 'ethical code' is considered safer ground: it concerns being against unemployment, poverty, racism, etc., which the Conservatives, of course, favour.
Despite the book's title, Mr Blair is care- ful to reclaim very little. He says that Holy Communion is 'symbolic' of the message 'that self is best realised through commu- nion with others'. He is also clear, though 'it has become fashionable to be uncom- fortable about such language', that there is a difference between right and wrong, good and bad. He does not judge what the differ- ence might be, but he says that 'we should not hesitate to make such judgments. And then follow them with determined action. That would be Christian socialism.'
How have the mighty fallen. What an uncertain sound the trumpet is giving forth. The book is dedicated to the historian R.H. Tawney, but where is Tawney's refusal to compromise 'between the Chureh of Christ and the idolatry of wealth, which is the practical religion of capitalist societies'? Where is anything resembling Tawney's denunciation of capitalism which . . . seems. . . to leave a taste as of ashes on the lips of a civilisation'?
Tawney, you might object, was not a politician standing for election, and so was free to lay about him But what about Sir Stafford Cripps in 1945? In Towards Chris- tian Democracy, published in good time for the poll of that year, he declared that the state was . . the nearest that we can get to an impartial judge in any matter' and that there would be nothing wrong with abolish- ing all private property, providing that 'the democracy controlling the State's actions must be imbued with the Christian spirit'. Sir Stafford had no doubts that he could judge what that spirit was: his book even includes 'a new and more practical creed' of his own devising which 'should be spo- ken from the heart of every Christian in the world'. Nothing nearly so thrilling from Tony as he searches for electoral victory half a century later.
Nor, to be fair, so breathtakingly arro- gant and silly. Most Labour thinkers do now acknowledge, with varying degrees of frankness, that Jesus was not necessarily in favour of nationalising the mines and the railways and raising the level of death duties, or that, even if He had been, He might have been mistaken. They do see that when politicians announce, which Cripps did, the dawning of 'the age of the Spirit', they are more likely exploiting the spirit of the age. But the question then aris- es: if Christianity and socialism have no practical, political link, what is the use of bringing them together in public argument?
Perhaps it is done simply to assert that the two creeds can be held by one individu- al, which is clearly true, but is not really dis- puted by Conservatives. More likely it is something to do with that 'ethical code' Mr Blair mentioned, a search for an overall justification for a position, for a moral hin- terland behind the foreground of economic technicality and political controversy.
Well, everyone needs such a code, a pat- tern for their conduct, and one admires Mr Blair for looking for it, but it is extraordi- narily hard for a modern politician to extract such a thing from Christianity and offer it to everyone without the divinity of Christ attached. I expect Mr Blair would say that oppression of the poor and defrauding labourers of their wages were contrary to the ethical code of Christianity. He would be right. According to the Penny Catechism, they are one of 'the four sins crying to heaven for vengeance'. But a third such sin is 'the sin of Sodom' and that, in Mr Blair's party, is no longer a sin at all, but a basic human right.
I am not suggesting that Mr Blair should lead a return to queer-bashing. All I am pointing out is that the 'ethical code' of Christianity does not help very much if one discards it every time it clashes with other beliefs. Any serious understanding of Christian ethics today must acknowledge that the technology of the 20th century has raised all sorts of painful questions about the creation, prevention and destruction of life which all Christians must try to answer and which all governments are bound to affect. Yet the party which Mr Blair wants to lead generally has no position on these mat- ters or has a position — on abortion, for instance — at odds with that of mainstream Christian churches. When the sandal of Christianity pinches, Mr Blair unlooses its latchet and flees barefoot up the road.
Which makes him no worse than the rest of us. But one wonders whether we need pay much attention to the revival of Chris- tian socialism. Its appeal is nostalgic, its content thin. It is like a television advertise- ment for butter, suggesting that it is pas- toral when actually it is only pasteurised.
Previous page
