Reflecting on ‘Brexit’ from a Christian perspective
With the bizarre events of the terminal few weeks continuing to unfold, I felt I wanted to write something by way of reflection on everything that has gone on. Afterward all, information technology might be felt to be odd to have nada to say from a theological or spiritual point of view on the political and national event that will probably have the most significance in our lifetime.
Even so there are some good reasons for holding back from commenting! For one, the whole debate seems to be mired in such complexity that information technology is hard to say annihilation useful that doesn't audio completely trivial or simplistic. Secondly, information technology is very difficult to offer clear theological principles that have some bearing on the large questions that face united states, since a slight modify in agreement the complexities can easily push the theological reflection in a unlike management. Thirdly, one of the dangers facing Christian leaders in commenting on this question is catastrophe up sounding partisan. I agree with those who say information technology is of concern when the bishops of the Church of England appear to be nearly uniformly convinced 'Remainers' when not but the regions in which they live but likewise the churches that they atomic number 82 tend to the reverse view. Is the gap between the 'ordinary' and the 'elite' which has shaped this debate nationally simply reproduced in the Church? And, lastly, when Christian leaders have made comments, they accept often been neither nuanced nor convincing.
And notwithstanding there are some dynamics around the current discussion that cry out for comment—and these are some observations that I think we need to reverberate on and learn from, both within our national life and in thinking near our life as the people of God.
i. Linguistic communication
One of the striking features of the whole debate has been the mode that language has been used, mostly in a very unhelpful way, and every bit this has trickled down into the crevices of social media it has go increasingly toxic. The simplification, the polarisation of views, and the slurs and slanders about people in the 'other' army camp has been dismal and depressing. I am amazed, watching the continued sloganizing even during the last few days, as if this was all the same some school debating social club competition.
In office, this utilize of linguistic communication is consequence of the vice-like grip that PR directorate take over politicians; they are told that actually answering difficult questions will make them look awkward and unpersuasive, and that they need to stay 'on bulletin' and simply repeat the core message. (Kenneth Clarke is the near obvious exception to this exercise.) Hence the baroque spectacle of Theresa May last yr repeating the mantra 'strong and stable' ad infinitum without e'er really explaining what she meant past it. (You can really lookout man her repeating this for five whole hours if yous want to—though the most entertaining part of this video is around 18 minutes in, where you lot realise that it sounds equally though she is talking nigh wanting 'tables'…)
But in this particular debate, the biggest problem has been the discussion 'Brexit'. Autonomously from tripping speakers up (so people constantly talk nearly delivering breakfast rather than Brexit), the main concern is that the discussion has no actual meaning. Despite Theresa May claiming that 'Brexit means Brexit', she couldn't say exactly what it meant, since the binary 'In/Out' referendum didn't explain it, and people clearly voted 'Leave' with a range of unlike ideas virtually what that meant. Even on social media yesterday, I was involved in an blithe contend with two 'Leavers' who disagreed on whether leaving the EU just staying in the Community Marriage really really constituted leaving.
The word was coined by Peter Wilding, who at present regrets the term, and he had all only forgotten its origins himself until it was seized on with gusto by the main Leave campaign. The repeated utilize of the give-and-take achieved two things: start, information technology simplified the fence into a binary selection between 2 articulate alternatives; and secondly, it so polarised both the debate and the nation into these ii camps (note my utilise of the word 'Leaver' above, as if these two people accept the same view, which they don't). Simplification and polarisation are the hallmarks of the issues of contend in a social media age, and the whole 'Brexit' saga has this writ large over it.
2. Leadership
Opinions seemed divided regarding the verdict that history will come up to on Theresa May'due south leadership. One view from the left (which I am sure will be disputed) argues that the 'Brexit' project was flawed from the start—but makes the interesting observation that May was dealt a bad hand, but played it as desperately as was possible.
All of this simply distracts from where the arraign truly lies: with the Brexiteers themselves. The trouble is not that May has failed to deliver on the Get out campaign's promises — the problem is that no prime minister could take done so. In 2016, the Brexiteers vowed to end free move, retain the economics benefits of EU membership, withdraw the United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland from the community wedlock and avoid a hard Irish border — aims that were inherently irreconcilable.
May has played a bad mitt desperately — she triggered Article 50 recklessly early, squandered her parliamentary bulk in an unnecessary ballot and carelessly alienated European union leaders and Remain MPs — only a bad hand it always was. From the moment that she reaffirmed Get out'south pledge to avoid a difficult Irish edge, a softer Brexit became inevitable. None of the alleged "technological" solutions offered by Leavers have ever been apparent. The dream of "Empire ii.0" — a buccaneering Britannia that strikes merchandise deals with the "Anglosphere" — has been thwarted past the legacy of Empire i.0: the Irish border.
It seems clear that Theresa May prefers to work in isolation. She makes decisions on her ain; she surrounds herself with people who will not question her or disagree; she fails to consult widely; she has refused to engage in cantankerous-party conversation in order to address shared concerns. She appears to think that 'strong' leadership involves sticking to her position in spite of all the testify, and refusing to engage with well-informed views that contradict her own. There is a strange rigidity in her arroyo, and one of the odd dynamics is that, having been a moderate 'Remainer' herself, she decided that the only way to accept credibility as Prime number Minister was to prefer fiercely a view at the other end of the spectrum that she was never convinced about. This effectively paralysed her in debate; she didn't have answers to the questions she was asked, because she didn't really believe in the position herself. (It is worth noting that this trend to surround oneself with those who agree has likewise, disappointingly, been the hallmark of Jeremy Corbyn'southward leadership in the Labour Party, and these symmetrical tendencies has led to the creation of the more fundamental 'Independent Group' drawing from the more 'moderate' wings of both parties.)
I have been in contexts in churches and Christian organisations where the leadership has failed to have a view or a vision, and has avoided making any decisions for fearfulness of upsetting one group or some other, and this is a serious problem in leading a community. But equally I reflect on it, I have more often been in contexts where the leadership has isolated itself, stuck to its guns regardless, and even at times played a game of 'divide and conquer' with other members of the team in society to go on questions at bay. At that place is a groovy temptation for Christian leaders to surround themselves with people of the same view, and avoid hard questions—since engaging with contrary viewpoints can be time-consuming and exhausting, and some 'contraries' are in fact aiming at sabotage rather than genuine engagement.
Only, in the context of both church building and politics, effective leadership needs to combine a sense of clear direction, beliefs and values with a willingness to appoint with others and an openness to larn. That, surely, is why leadership in the New Testament is always plural. (I hope information technology is something that shapes this blog also; I don't retrieve anyone would accuse me of non having clear views—just I hope that I combine that with engagement with different points of view, both in the content and in the discussion in comments.)
3. Power
The almost worrying thing is the mode that vested interests in the preservation of personal ability have come to the fore in this debate, near notably in the final few weeks. The idea that a bargain which has been both decisively rejected in Parliament and roundly denounced in the most extravagant terms as a 'betrayal' can all of a sudden become acceptable when attached to the promise of Theresa May'due south resignation is a clear indication of what is really at stake hither. We take the undignified vision of a skilful number of MPs jostling for position at the trough of ability, without noticing that the trough itself—indeed the whole farm—is teetering on the edge of a cliff. In one case over again, it seems to me that the same dynamic is at work on the other side of the House, with Labour policy existence designed more than with an eye to gaining and keeping ability than with doing the best for the country or tackling the issues.
It would be easy to pick on individuals for whom this is true, and it sits alongside the ignominious spectacle of those who take left political part to pace straight into highly paid roles where they very quickly rake in the millions. (This is non about the politics of envy; it is asking questions nearly the integrity of public service.) Just it seems to me that the ill-fated rush to trigger Article 50 before really exploring the issues was driven by MPs as a whole fearful of losing ability in their constituencies if they gave the wrong impression, rather than anyone having the backbone to point out that the Brexit emperor didn't and then much have no apparel every bit appearing to exist wearing four or 5 contradictory outfits equally the same time.
I am not so naive every bit to call back that MPs are all fatigued to function by a sense of selfless service to the wider community—just a good number are, and I think my previous Labour MP, Nick Palmer, was one such. Part of the trouble has been the shift in recent years to the domination in Westminster by career politicians, rather than people coming into politics from some other life feel. We need to recapture the spirit of the 'amateur' politician, who seeks to serve, and who brings pregnant expertise and perspective from having working in another context—and preferably not just the cyberbanking sector.
4. Integrity
This last observation is inextricably continued with the previous one. Over again, it would take too long to list the number of MPs who accept flatly contradicted the views that they previously stated, on this upshot but likewise on other subjects. In that location appears to exist a abiding jockeying for position, which seeks to express the view which is most helpful in getting to a desired position, then that values and analysis are entirely malleable, a means to serve some other cease. The opposite of this is not the kind of wooden rigidity which has been the problem with Theresa May's leadership, just a sense of consistency and integrity which means that, sometimes, it is important to say what isnot popular considering you do not believe that the popular view is actually true. This can look disastrous in the brusk term (and British politics is beset with curt-termism that refuses to retrieve strategically), but is really the most fruitful position in the long term.
1 of the important things to pray for is Christians chosen by God into this vocation of service in national leadership.
There are other observations that could be made; I think that the binaries of a two-party system, bolstered by our kickoff-past-the-mail service voting practice (the 2 go hand in hand) is a serious problem, and needs reform. (I am non sure there is much uncertainty that the new primal group, today announcing that they will form a party called Change United kingdom, cannot take a long-term future, since FPTP always penalises 3rd parties.) And moving away from binary voting and binary politics might accost many of the bug above. Just surely we have something to say almost these issues from a Christian theological betoken of view, without falling into the traps of being simplistic or partisan—so I wonder why national Christian leaders haven't commented on this much? (Possibly they have, and I have just missed it.)
There are some really good things, both practically and theologically, about the British political set upwards, the ii most important being the independence of the judiciary from the executive (which I think derives ultimately from a biblical understanding of law and leadership, but is not the case in the States) and the accountability of the executive to the elected Parliament (which has not e'er been the case in Europe, and led to a little local difficulty in Frg in the 1930s).
On the question of Europe itself, it is worth reminding ourselves of the complexities and what I call up are very evenly balanced arguments on either side. Andrew Goddard fix this out well in his Grove booklet at the time of the plebiscite, and his comments are worth revisiting:
It Hurts To Go Away: A Christian Instance To Remain
We should stay because the EU's vision, shaped by Christianity, has led it to much practiced for its members and more than widely. The proper response to difficulties in relationships is not to walk out but to work at them and influence others for the adept past being present. The Uk has modelled this through the European union afterward initially standing autonomously and we should persevere in that delivery. European union membership recognises the value of international co-operation and the need for many political questions to be addressed at a trans-national level. The UK and other nations benefit from our interest in institutions working for justice. These bodies tin can never exist as representative every bit local and national political structures but the European union ensures all nations are represented in its deliberations and respects their different histories and perspectives. Its commitment to subsidiarity gives a powerful basis for sustaining such distinctiveness.
To get out would diminish our input in conversations and decisions which will inevitably impact our lives and would isolate us from structures which bring us into regular political contact with our nearest neighbours. Information technology would give acceptance to erroneous views, especially that national sovereignty is inviolable, and risk fuelling nationalistic or xenophobic attitudes. Voting to remain does not mean accepting the Euro or all other recent developments. Rather, it ways being committed to working with our neighbours to seek our shared common good.
It'southward Incommunicable To Stay: A Christian Case To Get out
We should leave because the European union, despite Christian elements in its vision, and past successes for example in relation to peace, is at present failing and damaging members and others. It is increasingly captive to contemporary, particularly economic, idols as seen in the Euro, and is developing characteristics of an regal project which exercise not adequately respect national integrity. Given its history, the UK is well able to discern and to alert the EU to these trends but attempts at reform take largely failed. Subsidiarity, for example, is honoured in word but non activeness as Eu competences extend across so much of our lives. Particularly since the European union'southward expansion, the possibility of representative political say-so structures has macerated. In that location is even less—and far from sufficient—mutual identity uniting usa and we should not seek to engineer or impose such an identity.
The principle of free movement of Eu citizens denies the importance of our locatedness and does non exercise justice to distinct national identities. It is no longer enabling solidarity but increasing tensions and, every bit with other policies, leads to an unjustifiable preferential option for the EU rather than other, poorer, parts of the world. Brexit, though it volition take costs, opens the possibility of creatively rethinking and reconfiguring this negative dynamic to enable the creation of a better situation not only for the UK but for the EU and wider world.
(See also the earlier Grove booklet by Guy Milton, on the history and theological problems in the European union.)
Let us pray for our leaders and our nation at this time, not simply in general terms, but in relation to correct employ of language in debate, adept leadership, the right exercise of power, and a renewed integrity.
If you enjoyed this, exercise share it on social media, possibly using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo.Similar my page on Facebook.
Much of my piece of work is done on a freelance ground. If yous have valued this mail service, would you considerdonating £1.20 a month to support the product of this blog?
If you enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Similar my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is washed on a freelance basis. If you take valued this post, yous can brand a single or repeat donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Practiced comments that appoint with the content of the postal service, and share in respectful fence, can add together real value. Seek first to understand, so to be understood. Make the nigh charitable construal of the views of others and seek to larn from their perspectives. Don't view debate as a conflict to win; address the argument rather than tackling the person.
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/reflecting-on-brexit-from-a-christian-perspective/
Publicar un comentario for "Reflecting on ‘Brexit’ from a Christian perspective"