Religious Leaders - Is Politics Any of Their Business?

The foray of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, into the world of politics (in the form of his comments regarding the coalition government) has attracted opprobrium from those who insist that religion and politics should remain separated. In fact, Dr. Williams seems to go further than the official opposition when he speaks of the Big Society as a means by which the government is 'seeking to abandon its responsibility for tackling child poverty, illiteracy and increasing access to the best schools'. However, Dr. Williams is merely the latest example in a long history of Christian leaders to whom social justice is a matter in which they feel compelled to intervene.

For example, the collaboration, bridging both sides of the sectarian divide in Liverpool, between Archbishops David Sheppard and Derek Worlock, particularly during the Thatcher era, reminded people that the essential message of Christianity is compassion. Archbishop Sheppard was also involved in the controversial Faith in the City report in 1985 which laid the blame for 'social, spiritual and economic' decline in Britain's inner cities at the door of the Thatcher regime.

Overseas, it is hard to compile a history of the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa without mentioning the erstwhile Archbishop of Cape Town, Desmond Tutu. His opposition to President Reagan's 'constructive engagement' policy of friendly persuasion towards the apartheid regime was influential in bringing about the reversal of that policy. This was one of the major factors which led to the concessions enacted by the South African government from 1985 onwards, which eventually led to the transition to universal suffrage and, ultimately, regime change.

The example of politically-involved priests in South and Central America, at enormous risk to their own safety, is highlighted by the reported killing in El Salvador in 1989 of six Jesuit priests by Salvadoran soldiers. Reports such as these are legion in the Americas.

However, thankfully, it is highly unlikely that Dr. Williams faces such a fate. It could be argued that those that set themselves up as representatives of the Christian faith not only have a right to comment on policies that affect the lives of ordinary people but that it is, in fact, their moral duty. Additionally, at a time when Christianity, certainly in northern Europe, is struggling to retain a mass following, it is surely incumbent upon its spokespeople to show that their beliefs are relevant in the twenty-first century. By highlighting instances where government policy clearly clashes with the central tenets of the belief system that they espouse, Christian leaders can achieve consensus with humanist-based social justice movements. Many of these movements and individuals will be heartened by Dr. Williams's comments. Particularly as recent pronouncements from some other religious leaders, including the most venerated, advocate policies and practices which seem designed to exacerbate and perpetuate human suffering. It is encouraging to see one of their number railing against policies which can only increase the plight of the most vulnerable members of our society.

One test of the effectiveness of Dr. Williams's remarks will be the response of those social justice campaigners who do not share his religious convictions. The lessons of history teach us that effective, constructive opposition to governments can only be achieved by creating a broad-based, focussed consensus of opinion-formers and activists.

Whatever the outcome of this episode, it can be seen that the Archbishop is merely following in the footsteps of other clerics in asserting his right and duty to comment on government policy. It will be interesting to see the reaction of both pro-government and opposition voices in the coming days.