Faith in the public square

The relative authority of the state and the church was a contentious issue for early Christians (c.f. Romans 13). Indeed, for much of its history Christianity has been entangled with secular power and polity, inhibiting its ability to be prophetic, even if it has often been able to exploit its relationship with the establishment to effect good. How religion and society, Church and state, should relate is an historical and perennial matter. Moreover, this is an issue facing all religions. How can a faith address matters of public morality? At the extremes, should government be theocratic or secular, and if so, what kind of structural relationship may citizen-believers and their communities have with the state? Once a moral basis has been decided upon, how should believers act to achieve their ends?

Religious diversity even within national contexts, let alone internationally, makes these questions all the more complex. Rowan Williams wrestles with the very theme of this special issue in his book ‘Faith in the Public Square’ (2012). In this volume, he deals with complexities of the role of religion and unbelief in society, and its many aspects and influences. He points out the slipperiness of the categories ‘secularism’ and ‘secularisation’, and the resultant misunderstandings of these terms which creates a sense of loss, threat and anxiety amongst believers as their place in the world becomes seemingly eroded and insecure. Yet, he observes, the very basis for secularism lies within religion itself, and the influence of religion remains resilient in cultural and political life. Religious voices are far from silent, and though their cultural position may be altered and is altering, their power to shape social life is in reality far from diminished.

This special issue of the journal arises principally from a conference hosted by the University of Worcester, UK, in 2016, jointly convened by the university with the William Temple Foundation. Specifically, the conference invited a range of perspectives on the theme of ‘social justice’, and in part it commemorated the 75^th anniversary of the Anglican church’s Malvern Conference of January 1941. The original colloquium was held at the height of the blitz, and thus in safety away from London, at Malvern College, Worcestershire. From the privileged position as an established church, it drew together Anglican bishops and leading members of the laity with the aim of considering ‘how far the Christian faith and principles based upon it afford guidance for action in the world to-day’, and with a view to finding a Christian basis for a new social order (Malvern 1941, vii). Amongst the 400 present in 1941 were British-Christian leading lights of the mid-twentieth century: T. S. Eliot, Dorothy L. Sayers, and Sir Richard Acland. Later commentators have regarded this conference in somewhat negative ways, as marking the eclipse of Christian social radicalism in England (Norman 1976: 365), favouring a more moderate notion of state intervention rather than the more radical one of the common ownership of wealth (Grimley 2004, 205–206). In format the conference was said to have felt rushed, and the programme overloaded, ultimately lacking any real impact in and of itself (Machin 1998, 128). Notwithstanding these downbeat assessments, it is important to remember that this conference was at the end of a long chain of public intellectual interventions on the part of its convener and chair, William Temple, then Archbishop of York. Arguably, it was William Temple himself rather than Malvern per se that was being recalled in the Worcester conference. It was Temple’s intellectual spirit and approach which was invoked in so many of the papers presented, and this is reflected in the articles published here.

With a particular irony the 2016 Worcester conference began as the result of the EU referendum was announced highlighting the current divisions within UK society and raising in new ways the issue of the role of faith within nation building. It also brought news of the passing of Canon Prof John Atherton, for many years Director of the William Temple Foundation. His presence at the conference was sadly missed, as will his wisdom and contribution into the future. The work initiated by William Temple continues but in a different context and with the need for new resources and ideas.

Here Ian Jones’ article here compares the original conference at with commemorative conferences since, most notably in 1991, the 50^th anniversary year. Comparing and contrasting the themes and emphases of the two conferences, Ian Jones notes the altered tone and levels of confidence amongst delegates across the two events. If the church’s position in society has changed, so have the economic and political ones, since 1941. In addressing the matter of role of faith in the public square such variations are important, he concludes. It is not simply a matter of applying lessons from the past, the world and our concerns are quite different now. Chris Baker’s article similarly links the past with the present in relation to William Temple’s approach. What kind of society do we want, and how can faith/s inform a response to this question? Indeed, in a present-day plural context is it possible to find ‘ethical convergence’ in the social imaginary? Debt is a feature of life now in a way it was not in the 1940s, points out Philip Goodchild, indeed much of our economic life – both personal and national – is based upon it. What does justice mean in a society shaped by debt, he queries? Is the eradication of debt a moral imperative is achieving justice? In response he brings the moral principles elucidated by William Temple of freedom, fellowship and service to bear. Philip Krinks’ article contrasts William Temple’s thought, and those in his ‘tradition’, with John Milbank’s Radical Orthodoxy, particularly in relation to the latter’s support for social enterprises. Panu Pihkala traces how, beginning at the Malvern conference, British theology has contributed to the development of ecotheology. Shanon Shah’s piece draws upon recent research to show how LGBT Muslims negotiate their seemingly incompatible gender, sexual, and religious identities. John Reader and Rob Freathy provide some preliminary reflections upon the relevance of the philosopher Bernard Stiegler’s perspectives on education to religious education as exemplified by the ‘RE-searchers’ approach.

It remains a legal requirement in the United Kingdom to provide Religious Education throughout a child’s education. In this sense religion has a longstanding and resilient place in public life through the school curriculum. Many students additional opt to study religion to examination level. What the impact is upon them of such study is surprisingly under-researched. In two final articles here the motivations for choosing to study the subject to Advanced-level and its reported impact upon students is reported upon.

Stephen G. Parker
[email protected]
John Reader