Let me begin my response by being positive: there is a lot in the Declaration that is worthwhile. In fact, in terms of its general views on protecting human life, marriage, and the freedom of conscience, I have very little to disagree with. Neither am I against Christians engaging with the political process. It seems quite right to me that we have a role to play in all sections of civil society bringing the light of the Kingdom with us. However, I do find myself in disagreement with many aspects of the Declaration and will not be signing it and in this longer post than usual I want to set out my reasons.

Historic Faith

Let me begin with the Declaration’s first claim – that it is a declaration of ‘Christian conscience’. It is certainly declaring some Christians’ conscience, but not all. It begins with a statement of faith saying that signatories ‘reaffirm the historic belief’ of Christian faith. Claiming to be ‘historic’ of course has been a tactic of many over a very long period when faced with a charge that they bring something new to the table. The early church, for example, was at pains to (correctly) link their faith to historic Judaism when faced with pagan persecution. The Declaration goes on to link a belief in the Trinity as an example of this historic faith, thus claiming that it stands in the long tradition of orthodoxy – as opposed to heresy. The problem is that this orthodoxy only became the accepted theology of the church by relying on the state to defend it against attack. And the state often used physical violence, economic sanctions, and expulsion as its weapons of choice. There was very little room for the exercising of conscience then.

This may seem like an unimportant point – but in fact is a central plank in my case. The historic faith claimed to be the Declaration’s has shown very little tolerance towards those of different views. And there are many Christians today who do not fully line up with all that is in this document. Views on human s#xuality are especially broad with even some evangelicals beginning to shift in their views on this. It seems to me that Westminster 2010 stands squarely within Christendom – a tradition where any dissent is unwelcome, and where the views of a Christian minority are compelled onto an unbelieving majority through the might of the state.

Which brings me to my next point: the Declaration, it seems to me, is a reaction to the demise of Christendom. It is, of course, quite obvious that Christians are being marginalised in Western Europe today. We have become very small in number and we have lost the influence we used to have. Add to that a strength of feeling among many in society that they do not want a Christian rump telling them how to live their lives any longer, and we have a serious problem. Or at any rate it is a serious problem for those who believe that even as a minority the church should have power and influence over society. And this is what Christendom came to be – by being drawn into the centre of political power it gained great influence and privilege and was able to compel its values on others.

Those privileges are now being lost as the state rightly takes into account that Christians are only a small minority and are only one faith community among many. We live in a plural society and it is right that the state takes this into account as it plans for the future. Westminster 2010 sees this as a great tragedy – and maybe it is – but rather than fight to hold onto its grip on worldly political power a better response would be to see how the church can operate on the margins and influence society from the bottom up rather than from the top down. A growing number of Christians are beginning to see how bad Christendom was, and see its demise – far from being a tragedy – as actually a good thing.

The Declaration’s detail

Let me now turn to the detail of the Declaration itself. It has three main points: the protection of human life, the protection of the traditional Christian marriage, and the value of tolerating Christian conscience. As I said above, it is not so much what is in the document that concerns me as what is not in it. It is far too narrowly focussed. Take, for example, the first section on protecting human life. It bases this belief on the biblical thought that humanity has been created in the image of God. On that I am fully in agreement. It then lists a number of issues that threaten human life. Again I am in agreement with this list. It includes issues like abortion, euthanasia, poverty, and environmental damage. But astoundingly it does not include the harm done by war. It has nothing to say about the immense damage done to individuals, families and whole communities by the many conflicts in our world today. This, again, places Westminster 2010 firmly within the Christendom tradition, for one of its main characteristics was the defence of war and physical violence. You do not have to be a pacifist to come out against war – but many who follow Jesus today feel they are not able do so without taking his words about loving enemies seriously.

The second point in the Declaration has the protection of marriage at its core. It defines marriage as ‘the lifelong covenantal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife’. Again I find myself in agreement. It then goes on to say that marriage is something ordained by God as a vital context within which human life can flourish and because of this calls on the government to protect marriage saying that they ‘refuse to submit to any edict forcing us to equate any other form of sexual partnership with marriage’. But if marriage is God ordained then surely it is God sustained as well. If it can be argued that the state’s provision for civil partnerships is an attempt to equate that with marriage, does this have any real bearing on ‘Christian marriage’? Surely it is not the state’s recognition of marriage between a man and a woman that makes it the right thing but God’s recognition? If the legal aspect of a wedding ceremony were to be disposed of, would this make a marriage any less in God’s eyes? I think not.

The third point in the Declaration addresses religious liberty and conscience. By that, of course, it means Christian liberty and conscience. Much has been made recently about the ‘persecution’ of Christians in the UK. On this I am in agreement with Rowan Williams when he suggested that we should put it all in its proper perspective and clam down a little. The Declaration is silent on the issue of the rights of other religions in the UK. It has nothing to say, for example, about the shocking way the Muslim community has been treated following certain terrorist atrocities with many hundreds arrested, detained, and then released without charged with, at times, a heavy handed police approach. In a plural society we should all have an equal voice.

Considering that this Declaration is made during a General Election it is surprising that it has so little to say about some of the main issues addressed in the campaign. Has the church nothing to say about the deep cuts that will inevitably be made in public services, which will disproportionably hit the weakest in society since they are the ones who depend most on those services? Or what about the corrupt nature of our political system, where the lack of transparency led to the expenses scandal and the unfair electoral system shuts out marginal voices? The silence is deafening in the Declaration.

Aunt Sallies

In my penultimate point (don’t worry, we’re nearly at the end!), I want to address the number of Aunt Sallies put up in the Declaration just so that they can be knocked down again. For example, in the section on human life it states, ‘We refuse to comply with any directive that compels us to participate in or facilitate abortion, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide, euthanasia, or any other act that involves intentionally taking innocent human life’. But unless there is secret plan that I’m not aware of to have enforcement officers standing over our shoulders while we are compelled to conduct such practices, these directives don’t exist. Another example is to be found in the section on marriage where it says, ‘we refuse to submit to any edict forcing us to equate any other form of sexual partnership with marriage’. But no one is forcing you to equate anything with anything on this issue. And then there’s this phrase in the concluding paragraph, ‘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’. (Forgive me, but I’m struggling to hold back my sarcasm at this point.) Who then is threatening your right to believe anything? Exactly – no one. Over stating the case weakens the case.

Idolatry?

And finally at several points the Declaration calls for protection from the state. Some of the things it calls for protection for I would agree with: the protection of the weak and vulnerable in society. But it is the general tone of the Declaration that I struggle with on this point, for it calls on the state to protect Christians and the faith itself. In its final paragraph it calls upon the government to ‘protect the right of Christians to hold these beliefs and to act according to Christian conscience’, that is a protection to be a Christian. It also places a high degree of trust in the state to protect marriage which in turn creates a strong a stable society. But how close does this come to idolatry? When we trust any human agency to protect us, is this not a denial of our trust in God? You may argue that I am being too strong here - but the question needs to be put. I am sure that no one who signs the Declaration is anything but focussed on God in their lives. There are many good and passionate followers of Jesus in the list of signatories. But several times throughout scripture we are called upon to put our trust in God and not in the state – especially in the face of persecution. When things get tough, when people despise us for who we represent, when they drag us before the courts for acting upon our faith, it is not to the state that are encouraged to turn for our protection, but to Jesus.

Conclusion

There is no doubt that being a Christian in 21^st century Britain will have many challenges. It may be that we will face persecution. How we respond is important. A reactionary complaint about lack of influence and privilege will not serve us well. Better to learn how live on the margins and from there proclaim the coming Kingdom. And it is for these reasons that I will not be signing Westminster 2010.