Abstract
Neither the Scottish nor the English require a national Church to consolidate their national identity. Being a Christian in public office is no longer essential, as Rishi Sunak (Prime Minister, Hindu) and Humza Yousaf (First Minister of Scotland, Muslim) testify. Faith and work in public life have been living apart for some while. They are not yet divorced, but they are estranged. A marriage that was once solid and firm is now on the rocks (and not in a good way).
Richard Hooker (1554–1600) was one of the finest Anglican theologians, and in his Lawes of Ecclesiastical Polity magnus opus at the end of the sixteenth century, he sought to outline a form of social order that was fair, just and tolerant. His work subtly crafts arguments for loyal dissent, liberty of conscience, and a form of thinking and acting that does not capitulate to the forces of totalitarian religious or political rule. Over several volumes, Hooker’s Lawes offer a kindly critical vision for order that remains keenly alive to the threats posed by theocratic power – whether by monarch or by church leadership.
Thomas C. Berg’s majestic thesis brings the debates up to date and recasts them for the twenty-first century. As our political and social landscapes polarize along party lines, religious liberty faces threats from both sides. From anti-discrimination commissions targeting conservative Christians to travel bans punishing Muslims, recent litigation has revealed the selective approach both left and right take when it comes to freedom of religion. But what if religious liberty can help cure our political division?
Drawing on constitutional law, history and sociology, Berg shows us how reaffirming religious freedom cultivates the good of individuals and society. After explaining the features of polarization and the societal benefits of diverse religious practices, Berg offers practical counsel on balancing religious freedom against other essential values.
But why does this matter for us today? In a nutshell, the forces of secularization, globalization, urbanization, consumerism, individualism, liberalism and increased strength of the progressive democratic polity have undermined elitist monarchical command-and-control ruling. However, democracy itself is hardly stable at present, and many nations have found that it can easily be undermined.
In the UK we have recent experience of parliament being prorogued. In the USA, the civil disorder during a march on Capitol Hill on 6 January 2021 to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential election serves to remind us how delicate democracy can be. In both these examples, ‘take back control’ was the slogan used to allegedly reclaim freedom, yet at the same time it was plainly anti-democratic. Autocracy may be tolerated, but it is very rarely chosen.
John Locke’s Two Treatises on Government (1689) argue against the idea of absolute monarchy. Sometimes regarded as the ‘father of liberalism’, Locke proposed a theory of social contract that recognized the basic freedoms and rule of law required for a representative government. Locke influenced many of the Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, Voltaire, Rousseau and others – and those drafting the Declaration of Independence in the breakaway colonies of America. The seedlings for republican democracy were set out in Locke’s work, and it is worth recalling that just as the citizens of France and America were arguing for democracy, independence, freedom and revolution, the ferment of debate was lively in Britain too. Indeed, many British writers and political philosophers supported American independence.
Today, protecting Americans’ ability to live according to their beliefs undergirds a healthy, pluralistic society – and this protection must extend to everyone, not just political allies. Lay readers and legal scholars who are weary of partisan quarrelling will find Thomas Berg’s case eloquent, timely and compelling. The implications for faith in public life, and the challenges posed by current political divisions, could hardly be more relevant.