Christianity and Citizenship
By JOHN MAUD (Dean of University College, Oxford)
[The concluding article in the series "Christianity and Conduct" (of which this is one) will appear in next week's SPECTATOR. The writer is Major J. R. Bellerby and the subject " Christianity and the Use of Money."] HOW ought my behaviour as a citizen to be affected by the fact that I profess to be a Christian, and how is my duty as a Christian affected by the fact that I am a citizen ? The citizen's business is to build the best political structure possible, and to work whatever political structure there is in such a way that the least ill and the most good comes of it ; and these are not separate duties, to be performed at different times and in different ways, but two aspects of a single continuous endeavour. Defeatism and over-confidence arc the two chief dangers which a citizen has to avoid ; and of defeatism there are various kinds. The political situation, you may say, is far too complex for me to understand, and on much too big a scale for any action of mine to affect it. Besides, legislation is always in the interest of the stronger, and it is mere cant to talk about justice, or suggest, especially when the political institutions of a country are nominally democratic, that a citizen ought -to seek any other interest than that of his group. On • the other hand, the citizen who succumbs to the danger of unrealistic optimism believes that State-action by itself can effect the transition from injustice to justice ; it is ridiculous, he argues, to expect any group to surrender a privilege except to superior force, and coercion must therefore be accepted as the only means of progress. Further, he knows for certain what justice demands, and those who disagree with him are interested parties and must be liquidated.
How much can Christianity help the citizen to steer a middle course between defeatism and over-confidence ? For some who profess Christianity the dangers seem rather to be intensified than diminished. Christianity is concerned, they say, with the personal relationship of one man with another. Since the State has to do with things of this world and the Christian with things of another, the State's standard of values is quite independent of the Christian's ; moreover, the State's - method is force, and the Christian's method love. The result of such argument is that the citizen who professes to be . a Christian despises political action as unworthy of his high calling, and believes that the State's purposes can be achieved without force or the other disadvantages ' of political action, simply by the personal neighbourliness Which he sets himself to practise.
On the • other hand, if a citizen identifies the Christian - gospel with the programme of- one. or other ...O.the political parties, he becomes more dangerously over- confident than ever. He may argue, for instance, that a doctrine of Communism is implicit in the New Testa- ment, and that every Christian worthy of the name must therefore join the revolutionaries .; or he may deduce from the anti-God propaganda of the Communists that the only spiritual home for an honest Christian is some Anti-Communist League. In either case, • he becomes more dogmatic and dictatorial than if he had not professed to be a Christian.
By professing Christianity the citizen undertakes to run these risks, and he believes that none of them arc unavoidable. For his faith is based on two comple- mentary affirmations concerning the life and death of Christ. On the Cross, he believes, Christ demonstrated that, if man so chooses, nothing can separate him from God ; further, since the good life consists in communion with God, no envirozurient, however terrible, can by itself prevent the good life from being lived ; and it follows that no environment, however favourable, can by itself ensure the living of the good life. But at the same time he believes that it was only the sin of man that made it necessary for Christ to manifest the goodness of His life upon the Cross. And neither of these affirma- tions can he hold without the other.
Consequently, while he refuses to believe that if only the structure of society were altered, men would necessarily be good, or even better than they are now, and though he is persuaded that even in the most corrupt state man can realize the presence of God. and have eternal life abiding in him, yet he recognizes that he and his fellow-men have . failed in their duty so long as the social structure leads men into temptation and exposes them to unnecessary suffering. The mother of a large family, who lives in a single room, with the mangle in one corner and the coal piled in another, and yet competes triumphantly with her environment, symbolizes. to the Christian these two aspects of his faith ; and the mag- nificence of her performance in. no way palliates the iniquity of man in asking so much of her.
There are limits (in other words) both to the good and to the evil that the State is capable of doing, for no institution can either save a man the trouble: of being born. again, or.separate lien from the love of God. But there is much in both directions that the State can dd, and since- the State . is . Nthat inch "ChOose to Make it, - the Christian eitizen • must feel that his citizenship and his Christianity are part . and parcel of one another: • As each concrete set of circumstances presents him with a choice of action, he is faced with questions (such as whether to join this party or that, and whether to obey or disobey the latest - order of the Government), Which he can ask• neither the Bible nor the Church to answer for him: But whatever his particular decisions from time to time may be, there are ways in which his Christianity will always tend to affect his political action. His consciousness (for example) of the contrast between what we are (with our conflicting interests and our limitations of heart and head) and what we could be, if we used our power to become the sons of God, should make complacency and over-confidence alike impossible ; and his faith in that power should prevent him from ever finally admitting defeat. But he will not imagine that the necessary changes can come without sacrifice, or that we can sacrifice what is not our own. He will be ready, then, to make sacrifices himself, and he will not be satisfied until all the groups and. parties to which he belongs are so infected with the spirit of sacrifice that their leaders can be prepared, especially in time of conflict with weaker groups, to make sacrifices on behalf of the groups which they represent. Nor will he claim divine authority for •his judgement., or the judgement of his group, -about the immediate action to be taken by the State in the name of justice. Rather, he will be anxious to learn from those who disagree with him ; and. he will always regard it as a disaster, though sometimes an unavoidable one, if the political issue is so stated that in the end a minority of the electors (whether or not he is one of them himself) arc forced to bow to a decision whose justice they- are incapable of recognizing.
Finally, while he continually strives to make the laws and policy of the State juster than they are, he will recognize that meanwhile, imperfect though the State is, it enables him to do much good that otherwise he could not do. Instead of regarding the tax-collector an an enemy and resenting the force which lies behind him, lie will choose to co-operate and go the second mile with him, so that eventually State-action may achieve a quality :which not even the wisest legislation can by itself secure. In conclusion, his sensitiveness to human need will not be dulled by his knowledge that the State provides one way of loving his neighbour. So far from merely. leaving that neighbour to the Public Assistance Committee, he will be on the watch for every oppor- tunity of supplementing official action by those personal, unpremeditated acts of service which only the individual man or woman can do.
Previous page
