I’ve seen again the last year’s Easter message from David Cameron (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1qo1gd4klc), together with quite enthusiastic comments from some of my Christian friends. It made me feel uneasy. As a Christian, I am certainly glad that with such a statement Christianity is placed in the public sphere, where it belongs, and I strongly agree with various points being made – like the one that recognizes that Christianity can and does have a positive effect on general public life and the flourishing of the whole society. However, I must raise a Christian objection against the main point propagated here: the “Christian country” or “Christian nation”.
1. The notion of the “nation state” was born as a part of romanticist movement in the 19th century and has nothing inherently Christian in it. Quite the opposite, as it can be quickly learnt from history, this idea has caused innumerable wars and bloodshed on an unprecedented level. Adding the “Christian” label to it is, mildly speaking, very dangerous. Christians should be naturally skeptical about it, not least because of the fact that it is difficult, if not impossible to square it with the core biblical concept of “the kingdom of God”, where there is clearly no “Jew nor Greek, no Scythian or Barbarian” (Colossians 3.11), but rather “every tribe and every nation” (Revelation 7.9). If Christians by all means wanted to uphold the idea of a nation state, it should be a very weak one, weakened precisely because of the Gospel.
2. “Christian country” (British as much as Slovenian), as a more or less homogeneous religious population, did not historically come about as a fruit of evangelistic efforts, where people would hear the good news of Jesus and embrace it with faith and love, but was rather a consequence of the “Christian empire”. The difference is sometimes described as “Christendom” as opposed to “Christianity”. The “Christendom” arrangement was basically shaped in the 4th century with the Roman emperors Constantine, and especially Theodosius, and remained essentially the same in much of the Europe until the First World War. Under this arrangement, it was difficult or even dangerous not to profess the official Christian religion (or even the official version of it); at the bare minimum, it was at least unfavorable not to profess the state religion. Under this arrangement, it was legitimate to use force against non-Christians and heretics to bring them to the “true religion” defended by the Christian monarch. Augustine’s “Compel them to come in!” (an abysmal misinterpreting of Luke 14.23) was a respected doctrine and an accepted political advice to Christian rulers. If Cameron wanted to be exact, he should therefore say: “We are an Imperial-Christian country”, since the predominantly Christian heritage is mainly the fruit of the “Christian” empire that was there for centuries. But that would make his message less sweet and certainly not so “very happy”.
Having said all this, one could ask: well, how can then Christianity be a part of public life? My answer would be: precisely as a part, without any dominant or predominant overtones or appetites, without resorting to “moral majority” and “Christian nation” rhetoric etc. The “salt of the earth” (Matthew 5.13) is a metaphor of a minority which contributes something essential to the whole. Realistically speaking, Christians should contend to have a minority voice, which has something positive and beautiful, yes, even essential, to contribute to the pluralist society as a whole. If the secularists want to shut this minority voice out of the public life, we should gently remind them that they are going against the very ideal they are propagating, namely the ideal of a free and really pluralistic society where all the groups and minorities could enter into the public arena without any apriori exclusions.
Matjaž Črnivec 