Christian virtue in Britain: how does this inform our culture and attitudes? | Sam George

Any realm of social policy that is sensible considers the wider impacts of immigration and integration upon broader society and its corresponding culture at large. In fact, social policy itself is designed around shaping and sustaining the social-culture, and therefore carries the burden of consideration for external influences. The multiculturalist approach is currently popular with our government, and it seeks to placate worry over external influences by applying a morally relativistic (that is, the concept that all moral compasses are equally validated by their existence, irrespective of overarching social culture) lense to social policy. Whether such an approach is in the best interests of British citizens has been an object of debate over the decades — as anybody who follows British politics will have noted. 

The reality of the matter is that unfettered multiculturalism does come with its contingent issues, and ones which are too salient to ignore. For instance, multiple studies have concluded that societal harmony, the level of community involvement, and the mental well-being of culturally-homogenous individuals are all strained (and this applies to both sides) in direct proportion to the level of multiculturalism in their society. In other words, the more multiculturalism, the less harmony and community bond. This is largely due to the erosion of dense interpersonal networks which form the basis of community. Reasons concerning the importance of interpersonal networks is precisely what informs the conservative approach to the family being the foundation of wider society. Seeking to ignore these issues and placate concerns surrounding it is a dangerous game to play because it will accelerate the fraying of the naturally communitarian, social fabric inherent to human beings if the obstacles to it are flagrantly ignored. 

It affects all of us, irrespective of our cultural identification. The solution does not involve pushing this to breaking point by continuing with a blindfold - that benefits nobody. Equally, the solution also does not rest in applying a radically inverse policy, i.e., of refusing to build bridges between divergent communities. Aurelius was quite right in stating that a branch, once cut away from the tree and re-grafted, is never the same as that which has grown organically. This is what happens across the world. It is entirely reasonable to reapproach the question of acculturation and migration with a view to whatsoever enables the organic bridges to be built. Instead, I argue, the resolution lies in a balance. Moreover, this balance lies in a distinctively Christian approach to society and culture; despite being largely forgotten, it maintains its relevance inasmuch as over half of the British population remain Christian. With this, there is untold potential to build a core of sound, reasonable social and economic policies that can inform the national culture. It also provides a means to build bridges and establish a common understanding. 

To begin with, this approach would need to consult the Bible. In relation to the principles of this article it is best to begin with the foundations of man on the earth and his dominion. God first established the grass, the bushes that produce seeds, and the fruit trees (Gen. 1. 11-12), followed by the cattle, over all of which He gave humans dominion (Gen. 1. 27). From this, God made “every nation of men to dwell on the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,” (Acts 17. 26); further within these boundaries, we are commanded also to provide for our own and especially for those of our household (1 Timothy 5. 8).  

With that being said, it is also worth bearing in mind that the new covenant is universal, established in the Old Testament (e.g. Psalms 22. 27) and confirmed within the New Testament (Galatians 3. 28), and God’s grace through Christ is the “salvation to the ends of the earth,” (Isaiah 49. 6; cf., 42. 6).  What this means is that, whilst we are charged with responsibility over that which God has gifted,- the habitations and boundaries within which we dwell,- the same applies to everybody upon the earth; yet the universality of the covenant under Christ means that we are also not permitted to separate ourselves on grounds of race, for instance, when there is a common cause of alliance, being Christ.  

So, what bearing does this hold over a distinctively Christian approach to social policy in Britain? In short, the answer lies in analogy based on the scripture given above.  Bearing this in mind, it is necessary to point out that one’s household is, to an extent, ever in a state of expansion; we have a duty to look after it. Yet, this is at once paternalistic and cautious. For instance, when someone finds a suitable partner and they are accepted by the wider family, is it not true that the familial ties are further extended by marriage? Although those involved may be of differing origin, they are integrated once they have met the approval of the wider family. 

The same applies to the principle of nationhood. Our nation is our home and, as read above, we are charged not only by its foundation and ordinance by God, but also with a duty of care over its well-being. Likewise, those within a nation constitute its family. It is a paternalistic approach. But it is also plausible that a family may extend organically, typically following the approval of its recipients. The Christian ethos must apply to a nationwide consensus if we are to reach a balanced platform, because it is the moral compass provided by such that has informed and fermented our core common societal values.  What this means is that the true nature of building bridges rests upon the understanding that those best-suited to joining our society are those most willing to acclimatise themselves to a new environment and culture, irrespective of where they are from. Usually, this is easiest with migrating Christians, but is not impossible with some such other groups. It involves an approach that embraces the core virtues of patience, temperance, mercy, and an understanding for the struggles of change. Yet, the opportunity should be open to those who sincerely wish to walk that path, on condition that responsibility is reciprocated by way of acculturation and the adoption, to the core, of the values of the home country. 

And what are these core values? This is a question which would require an entirely separate essay to answer with any degree of depth and sufficiency. For now, it suffices to say that the core values of Britain are— and, within its historical tapestry, have been— largely informed by Christianity. In the modern day, it is also the case that these values, in the mire of unhinged multiculturalism, have become largely diluted and misunderstood. Even within the Bible, the mercies accredited to God come with a conditional responsibility that we too carry our crosses. Those who understand this in its entirety understand that, likewise, virtues extended to any and all are hinged by a conditional responsibility. Discrediting this primary factor is what enables confusion to reign. On the contrary, this is also what makes Christian migration the most sustainable and smoothest progress, because those who understand their faith and more inclined to connect quicker with those who share that faith. 

To conclude, let me be not misunderstood. This is not to say that those who enter Britain are to do so at the point of conversion to Christianity. What I am alluding to is the fact that those countries with shared religious or cultural core values (and in some instances, both, but this needn’t be the case always) tend to exhibit the best responses to acclimatisation. At the same time, there are some extenuating outliers; for instance, Sikhs are a minority religion which have been extended legal privileges, but have had such on the understanding that they have demonstrated an exemplary attitude to the core values of Britain and her way of life. The underlying principle is that acculturation and sincere commitment to strong values form the proverbial legs for the bridges which connect us. No bridge is built without a solid foundation, and there is no weaker foundation than that which placates our national virtues and values, pushing aside the genuine, for a purpose which is akin to complacency in the breaking and entering of the home of another.