Why Christians shouldn’t sign the Westminster 2010 Declaration

This post comes almost too late to be of any use in this election. My only consolation is that the Westminster 2010 Declaration may prove to be of no use either. Phil’s Boring Blog sums up some of the critical commentary out there, Faithworks have issued a statement against it, and so have the Christian fellowships of the three main political parties, and some  Christian politicians. I’m throwing my thoughts into the mix just in case anyone out there is allowing themselves a generous lunch hour to have a real hard think about their vote, and wants some clear thinking on the issues surrounding a so-called ‘Christian’ vote.

Simply put, I don’t think the declaration is a very Christian piece of writing, either in it’s content or in how the website links from it to a non-transparently rigged up voting advisory system (more on that later). Firstly, I have no doubt that the acts of ‘Christian conscience’ the key signatories wish the state to ‘protect’ and ‘uphold’ are not extreme acts. However, the declaration lacks any definition on this point and so is too vague to be of any practical use (see for example some of the scenarios raised in the Ekklesia article).

Secondly, this vagueness is open to misinterpretation and, in my view, almost invites it. Thus it works against the mission of the Church. To the watching world I fear it further reinforces an image of the Church as self-interested, moralistic and wedded to a Christendom conception of church-state relations. I think it may also suggest that in the formation of public policy the church hasn’t got the intellectual wherewithal to think robustly, despite what is the case in certain quarters. Sadly, articles in the Times and Guardian (and the online comments following) all demonstrate that this is exactly the message people are hearing, even if it is not one the key signatories intended to put across. Ekklesia, in their detailed critique, put it another way: “The Declaration risks triggering public resentment against the churches if these are seen as demanding special privileges, and polarising opinion over a certain set of policies mainly focused on control over people’s bodies.”

Thirdly, I share many of the ‘conscience’ and ‘expression’ concerns the Westminster Declaration seeks to address, such as freedom to wear a cross at work or for a nurse to offer to pray for a patient. However, there is genuine debate amongst Christians as to what constitutes a ‘Christian’ act of conscience and/or expression. For example, it is perfectly possible to argue that given Jesus’ practice of sharing table fellowship (of all things!) with sinners it would in fact be a rather un-Christ-like thing to deny lodgings to a homosexual when running a home-based B&B. The level of relational intimacy implied in the latter hardly touches that of the former. So I find the Declaration, in light of the legal cases provoking its drafting, presenting itself as not being biblical enough in its reasoning.

Fourthly, the Declaration website is not simply presenting a declaration for us to sign, and a pledge for party political candidates to agree to. It is actually offering tactical voting advice based on who is likely to be most supportive of the following pledge:

We call upon all those in UK positions of leadership, responsibility and influence to pledge to respect, uphold and protect the right of Christians to hold these beliefs and to act according to Christian conscience

Candidates have been graded according to seven categories:

1. Has made the pledge
2. Past record suggests supportive
3. Will not make the pledge
4. Past record suggests unsupportive
5. Position unclear or unknown
6. Preferred candidate in best position to win
7. Tactical option in best position to win

We’ve already seen the problems with what the pledge promises regarding acts of ‘Christian conscience’. Now, on top of this, we are being asked to vote based on the recommendations of their mysterious in-house search engine. We’re told that candidates are judged ‘sympathetic’ or not and categorized according to their past voting record, public statements and email responses (presumably sent to the WD team) written by ‘other candidates’. There are several problems here:

1. One candidate could write to WD against their opponent and that ‘data’ would be fed into their vote advisor.
2. Even if a candidate has signed the pledge but it is deemed ‘strongly at variance with a candidate’s past voting record or public statements it may be disregarded.’ Under this system a one-term MP who has not previously voted according to the WD checklist, but makes the pledge, is ranked below a candidate with no voting record who also makes the pledge. Thus the system inherently favours the untested candidate. It also presumes, rather than proves, deceit on the part of some pledge-makers.
3. It’s not even clear what the WD checklist is. We’re told candidates’ past voting data comes from two other websites, and links are provided. But we’re not told which votes are considered relevant to the WD scoring system and which are not, so we have no idea what the WD grading system actually represents. Are their votes included on going to war in Iraq, slowing climate change, the smoking ban, anti-terrorism laws, or any other of the host of issues Parliament addresses? One suspects not, but we are at best guessing as to what the WD categorization actually means.

The shadiness of this system can lead to bizarre results. For example, in my former constituency of Sutton & Cheam the current MP is a committed Christian and Liberal Democrat. He has not made the pledge and has been categorized ,‘Past record suggest unsupportive’. The Conservative candidate is also a committed Christian and has also not made the pledge. Yet she has been categorised , ‘Preferred candidate in best position to win.’ No explanation is available as to precisely how WD HQ have reached this decision. By contrast, there is a legitimate, if somewhat teasing, question about who a vote for Philippa Stroud is really for, yet one suspects it unlikely that this has been fed into the WD super computer.

In conclusion, I can’t in all ‘Christian conscience’ sign the Westminster 2010 Declaration. It just isn’t Christian enough for me. Its content lacks substance and its voting advisor won’t aid the average viewer in forming a Christian mind on political matters. Rather, it stifles reflective Christian engagement in politics through its lack of transparency. That is the sad irony of it all.

Advertisement

Filed under: Politics, Christendom, Christian ethics, Christian vote, Paul Burstow, Philippa Stroud, Westminster 2010 Declaration