Government plans to pass an Equality Bill through the House of Lords failed this week when strong objections were made by an on behalf of Christian churches. The Bishops were especially vocal apparently as were many Conservatives. Indeed the Conservative Party officially opposed aspects of the Bill. Objections were raised because of the fear that churches and other Christian organisations could have been prosecuted for refusing to employ people on grounds of sexuality. While priests and pastors would have been exempt from the bill other workers would not, such as youth workers.

The case against was based on the issue of religious freedom and the church’s right to exercise its’ conscience on such matters. Most Christian comment following the vote has been extremely positive: organisations such as CCfoN celebrated the news as a victory for the church against the advance of secularism. God was thanked for answering the prayers of his people.

Now while I am pleased that religious freedom has been defended in this way, this whole area does raise some serious concerns for me. First, it seems that most Christians in the west are still tied to the idea of Christendom – where the church can impose its view on society at will through the use of political power. The most glaring aspect of this is the fact that we still have the Bishops’ bench in the House of Lords. No other special interest group has such representation, so why should the church? And yet the church by now is only one minority group among many in the country. Parliament may not have changed but society has and while the church continues to be tied to Christendom it will never learn how to be a witness in a plural culture.

Second, how far should the church – or any other organisation, faith based or otherwise – be allowed exemption clauses from certain acts? Is it right, for example, for the Anglican churches in the UK to continue in their stance of refusing to promote women as bishops? And which church traditions should have the determining voice anyway, since there are many differing views between Christians on this and many other issues? Many Christian organisations like Ekklesia, for example, are taking a different view on homosexuality today.

Third, there is the issue of consistency – or lack of it – in the debate. For the Church of England to insist on the right to refuse to employ homosexuals when many of their clergy are gay themselves is somewhat inconsistent. And the world can see this. It can see very clearly when we say one thing and do another. I would argue that this inconsistency is more damaging to the moral fibre of our country than many of the laws passed in parliament.

Finally, the fact that it was in the House of Lords that this bill has been challenged is an important issue in itself. Much of the lobbying done by the church today is directed at the second chamber because there is a wide belief among Christians in the UK that this where we have the best opportunity to bring about change rather than the Commons. There is much strength to having the current arrangements in the Lords (where peers are appointed rather than elected) – ensuring that experienced and knowledgeable people are sitting there being the most obvious. But it is fundamentally an undemocratic institution. It’s better than it used to be certainly, with the Blair reforms of many years ago sweeping away all those hereditary peers. But while it remains an unelected chamber it does not have true democratic legitimacy. A question to be asked of the Christian lobbyists is this: are you favour of such reform? And to add a theological twist to the question: is your God big enough for you to do so?

Christendom is being swept away. We will not be able to rely on being the ones with our hands on the levers of political power for much longer in the UK. We need to learn to do things differently. We need to learn how to live in a pluralistic society without compromising our own lifestyle of faith, where we affect change from below rather than from above.