A Secular or Christian Constitution?

Introduction

The constitution of the United Kingdom has been built up over many centuries and is a reflection of its Christian identity. This paper is a contribution from a member of the Christian Peoples Alliance to the ongoing debate on Constitutional change and disestablishment. Proposals for constitutional change are currently being debated. This paper considers the merits of our present constitution and examines whether an alternative, non-faith centred form of constitution is likely to provide any improvement. It begins by examining the current Christian Constitution of the United Kingdom and considers whether any improvements in human rights, freedoms, political or social stability may be obtained by becoming more "secular".

It is argued that "secularisation" would bring no benefit to the people of the United Kingdom.

Britain is going through the "most intensive programme of Constitutional change since 1689", when the sovereignty of Parliament was firmly established. - Jack Straw MP, Home Secretary, The Times, 1988

"Constitutional reform is like shooting rapids in a raft - hard to escape from once you have started." - Shirley Williams, Fabian Review 1988

Our Christian Constitution

The Constitution of the United Kingdom comprises Magna Carta (1215), the Bill of Rights (1688), the Act of Succession (1701), the Act of Union (1707) and the coronation oath. These are formal state documents and have an authority that is above that of Parliament and Crown. Our Constitution establishes limits to governmental authority. Common Law recognises ancient rights and freedoms that go back to Christian eras long before the United Kingdom existed. It is therefore part of our history and civil heritage - part of our identity as a nation. Our Constitution and Common Law do not owe their origin to any particular government, race, culture or religion but to the influence of the Christian faith in our country over many centuries.

The historic documents forming our written Constitution recognise the sovereignty of the Almighty over the nation, God as the source of all political power and that His will is the rule by which justice is measured. The opening words of Magna Carta read,

"John, by the grace of God, king of England",

and, later,

"Know that, having regard to God and for the salvation of our soul and unto God and the advancement of the holy Church"

The Bill of Rights recognises the goodness of God, as follows.

"considering how it hath pleased Almighty God in His marvellous providence and His merciful goodness to this nation"

In the Act of Settlement it is declared,

"your majesty's good subjects, who were restored to the full and free possession and enjoyment of their religion, rights and liberties, by the providence of God"

"...that it standeth wholly in the pleasure of Almighty God to prolong the lives of your majesty..."

Each of these documents came into being at pivotal points in our nation's history. They were not made exclusively by Parliament. Some were established before Parliament existed, others comprised treaties between monarch and the people, all establish limits to the power of the monarchy and Parliament. They cannot be altered in part without undermining the whole. Once Parliament is considered to have the power to change any part of the Constitution then Parliament becomes a law unto itself without constraint.

According to our Constitutional history, rights and freedoms are assumed and those in authority can only take them away under exceptional circumstances such as in times of war. This is the opposite principle to that of secular, socialist theories of the state, which hold that the state grants freedoms as it sees fit, is the source of all freedom, authority and justice.

Summary of rights under our present Christian Constitution

Magna Carta

• Freedom of religions from political control
• Preservation of inheritance
• Freedom not to marry [against ones own will]
• Creditors may not seize assets while a debt may be repaid, and the financial rights of relatives are greater than those of creditors
• Local government retains in perpetuity certain liberties and free customs (limiting the arbitrary removal of power from local government)
• Proportionality in the application of fines
• Certain rights not to have private property confiscated by the state
• Commonalty of weights and measures throughout the kingdom
• No one may be tried without witnesses
• Judgements by peers (supposing trial by jury)
• Freedom of movement in and out of the country
• Children cannot be compelled to honour obligations that were entered into by their parents
• Only those qualified and willing to enforce the law may do so
• Foreign soldiers owing allegiance to a foreign crown were banned from the kingdom

Additional clauses in Magna Carta make provision for restitution of property to those from whom it was unreasonably taken.

Bill of Rights

• Laws cannot be suspended without Parliamentary authority (ending the idea of absolute sovereignty)
• One legal system shall exist throughout the kingdom
• Taxes may only be applied by approval of Parliament
• Parliamentary authority is required to maintain an army
• A right of appeal exists in legal matters
• The right to bear arms
• Free elections
• Freedom of speech
• Fines may not be applied before a conviction has been secured
• Parliaments should be held frequently
• The monarch shall remain free of influence from foreign religious interference
• The Protestant faith is the established faith of the nation

Act of Settlement

The Act of Settlement further established the Protestant religion in the United Kingdom and determined who had right of succession. It also set certain limits on concerning whom the monarch may marry. The reason for this is that it had been determined 'by experience' over many years that a monarch who came under the political influence or who owed allegiance to a foreign power may act in such a way as to cause social division. The monarch must be singularly loyal to the needs of the people, as the people need to be loyal to one monarch. 'Man cannot serve two masters'.

What are the Possibilities for a 'Secular' Constitution?

The Church Under a Secular Government

The possibility of establishing a Constitution based on those biblical teachings solely concerned with man's relationship with man and omitting references to God or religion is not new. Roger Williams raised this possibility as long ago the seventeenth century. Williams' cause was taken up by John Coffey, who published a paper in the Evangelical Quarterly in January 1977 entitled 'Principled Pluralism'. Stephen C Perks, in his book 'A Defence of the Christian State', provides the following theological and practical arguments against religious neutrality in civil government:

• The church cannot lead a marginalized existence 'as a colony of resident aliens in the midst of a hostile culture' since this is 'the very antithesis of the role given to the church in Scripture', as can be seen from the Great Commission.
• Against the argument that the church is intended to be a counter-cultural community existing independently of the secular world, Perks points out 'Where does the Bible tell us that the purpose of the church is to retreat into her own private ghetto? This is a radical reformation agenda for irrelevance'.
• 'Christ told us not that the meek will retreat into the ghetto, but [that] they will inherit the earth (Matthew 5:5), i.e. the kingdom of the world'.
• 'The church does not bear the sword; it preaches the word. The state does not preach the word; it punishes evildoers with the sword. But what the state considers evil doing must be informed by God's word, otherwise how could the state act as God's servant in the matter?'
• If the church withdraws from the political action then some other religion will takes its place. 'Today this is secular humanism, with its supposedly religiously neutral concept of human rights, such as a woman's right to murder her unborn children. The withdrawal of the Christian faith from the political sphere...has led to this abortion of justice in the first place.'

The failures of secular government

[Editor's note: David here includes almost the whole of his article on war and religion, which appears elsewhere on this site under the name Nation shall rise against nation... - please do take the time to follow the link, which explains that it is not religion, but irreligion, which is the predominant cause of war.]

Psalms 53:1. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity; There is none that doeth good. (ASV)

The proposition that 'most wars are caused by religion' is simply not supported by the facts: atheism is the world's biggest killer.

Marxism and Nazism represent extremes of political philosophy, which are thankfully not greatly advanced at present. However, atheism is also advanced through various humanist movements. Secular humanist philosophy with its appeal to religious neutrality and 'tolerance' is one of the biggest competing ideologies against the church in the Western world today.

The calling of the Christian church is to influence the non-Christian world around it. By and large, this influence is peaceful and does not involve persecution of non-believers. Indeed, it can be said that the church exists for the benefit of non-members.

How would a secular civil government relate to the church? A government which does not recognise the special place of religion is necessarily atheist. A government that seeks to derive its values from 'reason' alone is humanist. Can a civil secular-humanist (atheist) government exist comfortably alongside religion? Even if religion could be relegated to being no more than a private matter, this is unlikely to be the case.

Humanism is a modern invention; it developed during the Enlightenment and Renaissance periods. It became significant as a political philosophy in the nineteenth century. Humanism is characterised by its rejection of the supernatural and hence religion. In addition, reason becomes the basis of human philosophy. Human beings become their own arbiters of right and wrong. Humanism does not see itself as being merely concerned with the world of the political/civil government but as a philosophy for the whole of life. An atheist government must use its power against religion.

Humanists resent religious competition in any sphere. Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) held the view,

"No state has ever been founded without a religious basis [but] the law of Christianity at bottom does more harm by weakening than good by strengthening the Constitution of the state."

At least Rousseau acknowledged the importance of religion in providing a foundation of the state. How Christianity is meant to weaken the Constitution of a state when it delineates between church and civil authority is not clear. At his time no secular humanist state had come into existence against which to test his theories. Nonetheless his anti-religious tone is evident. Material produced by humanist societies is more than merely philosophical, seeking to recruit intellectuals to its cause; it is against all expressions of religion. Humanists are at war with religion.

The Christian arguments against secular humanism are too many to repeat in full here. Many Christian denominations would consider that there is a separation in the roles of the church and state. This separation, which has no counterpart in atheism, limits the potential for the abuse of political power by religious leaders. By limiting the role of government to matters of law and order, and justice, under the moral guidance of Christianity, atheists need not fear the persecution that they have often inflicted on followers of religion. The same is not true of humanism. Where the religion of non-religion is the doctrine, religious repression is the practice.

The Replacement of Christian Values by Humanist Reason

As Christianity is taken out of public life, the ideology of secular humanism has moved in. It is clear that they will not stop at merely banning 'faith based schools' on the pretext that they are 'divisive'. The French Revolution(s) and the rise of secularism suggest that the church could be stripped of its power completely. A strong anti-clericist movement developed and some Christians (the Huguenots) were even forced to flee the country. Although similar events may not occur in the United Kingdom, similar opposition may be expected. The church cannot afford to give ground to those who would wish to de-Christianise the Constitution.

An outworking of morality based on human reason is that in such emotive and subjective areas people rarely agree. Humanism is therefore fatally flawed since it has no foundations in moral absolutism. Atheist societies need to justify themselves by appealing to 'tolerance' and respect for 'diversity'. The consequence must be moral and eventually civil anarchy. It is ironic that those who so most forcefully advance the doctrine of 'tolerance' are furiously intolerant towards those who disagree with them.

Conclusion

Our present written Constitution presents a considerable number of rights and liberties as it stands. Many of these liberties are ones, which are acceptable to both secularists (atheists) and non-Christians. Secular thinking would not add anything to our Christian Constitution; indeed it is more likely to take away religious freedom and replace it by a wholly arbitrary moral code.

Secular (atheist) governments have consistently limited freedom and brought death and destruction.

Experience has shown that a secular Constitution would give rise to an atheist government that would be hostile to both the social and political work of Christian churches. Atheists have not usually received physical opposition from religious people.

The present Christian Constitution of the United Kingdom, based as it is on a Christian understanding of political order, is nothing to be ashamed of and does not need changing.

Any failing in our Constitution lies not in its substance but its observance.