Cops & Robbers started life in 2004 as an initiative of the Christian Police Association (CPA) London which aimed to reduce crime, particularly knife crime, amongst young people. Permission was given by the Metropolitan Police for comic books, telling true stories of ex-offenders and others who are now Christians, to be placed in cells. However, when the first edition of 10,000 was produced, permission was withdrawn as one of the stories showed a black man with a knife – a ‘racial stereotype’, according to the Met – even though this was a true story.
 
The Daily Mail and BBC got hold of the story and what might have been seen by 300 – 500 young people in custody, ended up in a national newspaper and on the BBC news with Des, the subject of the story, telling millions of viewers how the power of God had changed his life.
 
There followed a second and third edition of the comic published by me before I retired from the Met after 30 years’ service, but not before a special edition was produced in conjunction with T.R.U.C.E. (To Reach Urban Communities Everywhere, a Nicky Cruz organisation which uses ex-drug addicts and dealers to reach young people with the gospel). These editions were used around the country by police forces putting them in cells, by churches as outreach, and as part of Operation Blunt (a Metropolitan Police initiative to reduce knife crime).
 
In Devon and Cornwall the Youth Offending Team made the comic available to young offenders and several became Christians. Wherever the comic has been used it has been well received. It has been particularly well received by prisons and many thousands of copies have been given out for free.
 
Upon my retirement it looked as though there would be no more editions but in the space of two days, three things happened:
1. A friend at church offered to pay for an edition to be printed;
2. Devon and Cornwall requested a special edition to be done for them; and
3. Mike Smith, a Metropolitan Police Officer had a vision from God for young people to exchange their weapons for his: their guns and knives for Bibles.
 
This led to a new smaller ‘pocket’ edition being produced and distributed. The Metropolitan Police paid for 5,000 copies to be printed for use with Word4Weapons, a scheme started by Mike Smith in London where young people can surrender their knives and guns in specially adapted weapons bins and in exchange receive a Bible, a comic, information, etc. in a special ‘All I Need’ bag.
 
A chance meeting then led to Teen Challenge producing their own edition which they distribute when they do street evangelism six days a week in London. Some of the stories in the comics are from them and others from people who attend Transformed, a church for ex-offenders in Brixton.
 
With the help of supporters we produced a special edition in Thai for use by John Robinson, the first ex-offender I met after I became a Christian who, with his family, now works in prisons and orphanages in Thailand.  John wrote Nobody’s Child, a very moving story of a young lad brought up in care and with spells in prison before becoming a Christian.
 
It costs about £5,000 to produce each edition of the comic, and though most are given away, we rely on donations to raise funds for subsequent editions. In 2010 my church, Community Church Bishop’s Stortford, committed to support the production the next two editions. I am currently preparing an edition for 2012. I have been blessed by the work of a number of illustrators including one who works for Marvel Comics in the States and has done a wonderful job for me.
 
To date over 100,000 copies, 10 editions, have been produced and distributed. I am working with Avanti Ministries to produce a special edition for them and copies have been distributed worldwide as and when they have been requested. The stories are all available to read on the website where donations towards the work can also be made. All I ask from people if they would like hard copies is payment of post and packing and a donation.
 
God has been very good in starting this work and allowing it to continue. We all have a story, and these are very easy to follow, especially by those for whom literacy is a problem – over half the prison population have difficulties with literacy and numeracy.
 
I have recently been appointed the Word4Weapons tri-borough co-ordinator (Southwark, Lambeth and Westminster).
 
The 2012 edition is currently being prepared. If any church would like to pre-order 1,000 copies for outreach, etc. at a cost of £250 (which includes delivery in the UK) please contact Bishop’s Stortford before the end of December 2011. This will help us to plan an increased print run which is much more cost efficient.

She was born in 1828 into a family that already had a history of social reform, and I shall let Josephine talk about her father from her book: An Autobiographical Memoir.

My father was a man with a deeply rooted, fiery hatred of all injustice… My father’s connection with the great public movements of the day - the first Reform Bill, the Abolition of the Slave Trade and Slavery, and the Free Trade movement - gave me very early an interest in public questions and in the history of the country.

The love of justice was a passion with him. Probably I have inherited this passion. When my father spoke to us, his children, of the great wrong of slavery, I have felt his powerful frame tremble and his voice would break. He told us sad stories of the hideous wrong inflicted on negro men and women.

 
In 1852 she married scholar and cleric George Butler, who shared both her Christian faith and her commitment to liberal reformation and together they had four children. However, sadly, at age six their only daughter died, and to cope with her grief Josephine threw herself into ministering to those with greater pain than her own, working particularly for the rights of women.

Josephine began a campaign in 1869 to repeal the Contagious Diseases Acts (CDAs) in the same year that they were fully introduced. These Acts were designed to protect soldiers from sexually transmitted diseases but placed the blame entirely on prostitutes. In addition it gave police the power to force an examination on any woman who could not provide proof that she wasn’t a prostitute. The women accused often had their reputations destroyed and this caused them to be unable to find work or lodgings, except in a brothel.

The CDAs stood in stark contrast to her Christian views that placed value on all people and so even when she realised that the chance of a quick victory was lost, she continued on regardless. Wherever possible she persuaded sympathetic MPs to introduce the repeal bill to Parliament even with no chance of success, as keeping it in the public eye was incredibly valuable. It would be 14 years before she finally saw the Acts suspended and three more years before they were repealed entirely.

At the same time, as part of another campaign for women’s rights, she saw the age of sexual consent in Britain rise from 13 to 16. This began to combat the child prostitution that Josephine knew existed in her hometown of Liverpool and also changed the laws that protected girls against sexual abuse. Before the bill was introduced only the father of the child could bring a charge of abduction so the law was useless if the father was dead or had abandoned the mother.

George Lansbury explains in his book Looking Backwards and Forwards (1935) some of the character that made Josephine the influential woman that she was.

[A] very gentle and lovable woman was Mrs. Josephine Butler. Once, in the big St. Mary’s schoolroom in Whitechapel, I listened to her with tears running down my cheeks as she told of the cruel and barbarous workings of the Contagious Diseases Acts. Mrs. Butler left a comfortable rectory to fight this fight on behalf of womanhood. She had to face tremendous opposition, gross distortion and misrepresentation. There was at the beginning no organisation, either of women or men, to stand with her. Nor did her own sex support her. But the unremitting toil of this fine Christian woman, not overblessed with physical strength, and not an orator in the accepted sense, at last won her victory, and the “C.D.” Acts were repealed.

Josephine also had a huge part to play in women’s education during the 19th century, a time when many girls resorted to prostitution due to poor education creating poverty. To respond to this need she started training them in more skilled work as well as setting up a small workshop to make envelopes. The profits from this endeavour helped cover the running costs of a hostel, which she had set up as a woman’s refuge.

In addition to her personal work for the women she came in contact with, she also became president of the ‘North of England Council for Promoting the Higher Education of Women’. One of the council’s activities was petitioning Cambridge University to admit women to its Higher Local Examinations, and they saw success in 1869, opening up a vast array of new options for women in education.

There is no doubt that Josephine Butler was one of the most remarkable women of the 19th century. Many of the reforms that she brought about in her lifetime still stand today and her life is an inspiration to all of us who seek to change culture for the better.

Equally at ease conversing with royalty and chimney sweeps, Anthony cared little for his position or reputation, but devoted his life to serving the God he loved. He is commemorated in the name of one of Central London’s busiest streets, and with one of its most famous monuments; and it is no exaggeration to say that his tireless work saved the lives, as well as the souls, of many thousands of people. He was dubbed in his life time ‘the Great Reformer’ and ‘the best friend the poor ever had’, but is most commonly known today simply as Lord Shaftesbury.
 
As was the case for many children of the rich at the time, Anthony’s early years – he was born in 1801 – were ones of loneliness and deprivation, even in the midst of his parents’ wealth. The love we might have expected to be provided by his parents came instead from the devout Christian housekeeper Maria Millis. While the church and his father taught Anthony to know and obey the teachings of the Bible, Maria taught him to know and love the God of the Bible; she introduced him to the faith that was to sustain and drive him for the rest of his life.
 
As a teenager at Harrow School he once witnessed a ramshackle, undignified pauper’s funeral. His compassion welled up for the dead man, and he resolved then to commit his life to making a difference to the fates of the lower classes. He asked God to help him to use the power and influence that were coming his way (he was to become an MP for many years before inheriting his father’s Earldom) ‘to plead the cause of the poor and friendless and to give them a better life.’
 
It is almost easier to list the areas of poverty and injustice in 19th Century Britain that Shaftesbury didn’t try to solve than those he did. He campaigned for better treatment of mental health patients and proper regulation of the asylums; for improved working conditions, fewer hours and the provision of education for children working in factories and cotton mills; for the prohibition of the employment of children under ten and women in coal mines; for the abolition of the use of small boys to sweep chimneys, and against animal vivisection. He was a strong supporter of the London City Mission, an active participant in the establishment of ‘Ragged Schools’ (free schools established to teach the poorest children reading, writing, arithmetic, the Bible and a marketable skill), and an opponent of the wholesale destruction of poor people’s housing to make way for the new railways. He sought the regulation of boarding houses (which sometimes housed up to thirty people of both sexes in a single room), the placing of new cemeteries within easy reach of the poor in London, and the provision of clean water and proper sanitation for the city. In short, Lord Shaftesbury made good on his intention to give his life to the improvement of every aspect of life for the poor and friendless.
 
If this list appears exhausting in itself, consider the even more remarkable aspect of Shaftesbury’s work, and the thing which made him so persuasive: he didn’t merely campaign for these reforms from the warmth and safety of his London office or his country estate, but made a point of backing up his rhetoric with first-hand evidence. He travelled to the north of England to see conditions in the factories and meet the hunched, wizened, half-crippled children who worked as many as nineteen hours per day during the ‘rush months’ (and fourteen the rest of the year) darting among the noisy, dusty, potentially lethal machinery in the cotton mills. Then it was down into the coal mines, taking an artist with him this time, the better to convey the dark, cramped conditions in which children as young as four years old would often be found working. The pictures and stories revealed six-year olds carrying loads too heavy for a grown man, boys and girls with their legs rubbed raw crawling along the passageways dragging cartloads of coal to the surface, chained to their loads like pack horses, a young girl sitting alone in a dark passage hour after hour listening out for the rumble of a cart signalling that she should open the trap door to let it through. Alone, afraid, hungry and tired, she sat at her post all day every day, earning a few pennies to help keep her family from starvation.
 
The Mines and Collieries Bill was passed relatively quickly, due in no small measure to the powerful first-hand evidence and testimony that Shaftesbury was able to give. The Government tried to prevent the evidence from reaching the public domain, but it was leaked and doubtless the public outcry contributed to the success of the Bill. Other measures did not fare so well. It took 41 years before the Ten Hours Bill regulating the length of time children could work in factories was fully functional! Then as now, the complexity of issues surrounding any legislation was so great, and the interests of the mill owners and the MPs who were in Parliament thanks to their votes were so strong that to do what was right for one part of society would upset the finely balanced economy and, so it was argued, damage the prosperity and health of the nation. Shaftesbury would not give in, though, refusing to ‘let my fears or my love of ease come before my sense of what is right and of what God wants.’
 
But that was still not all. Not content with using his influence and his testimony to make a difference, Lord Shaftesbury used his own meagre resources to be of immediate assistance, too. One biographer described him as, like many of the landed gentry of his day, ‘asset-rich but income-poor’. (By this time too, he and his wife, Minny, had nine children to feed, clothe, educate and, sadly, in a couple of cases provide expensive medical care for.) He was constantly in debt, yet constantly giving to others whose needs were even greater than his own. On finding pupils at one of the Ragged Schools too hungry to concentrate on their work, he went home and got his cook to boil up a cauldron of soup, which he took to the school. He provided the same for the school every day for the rest of the winter.
 
A story which encapsulates the esteem in which he was held by the poorest of the city, tells of the time when a small boy picked his pocket and made off with his gold watch. The pick-pocket’s friends recognised the watch and promptly bundled thief and timepiece into a sack, tied it up and deposited it outside Lord Shaftesbury’s front door! History does not record how the Earl dealt with the ragamuffin, but the example of countless other such encounters would suggest he was more likely to give the child a bath and a hot meal than a beating.
 
Shaftesbury was not only a friend of the poor, though. He was encouraged and supported (often with very generous financial gifts) by Lord Palmerston, offered positions of power by successive governments, and was counted by Prince Albert as a confidant and friend.
 
Story after story could be told of this great man who humbled himself and gave all he could to befriend the friendless and live out his faith in practical action. He was deeply concerned for the souls of the lost, but knew that calls to repentance would go unheeded unless their hearts were softened by experiencing the love of the God he served.
 
The statue of Anteros, or the Angel of Christian Charity, was erected in memory of him in Piccadilly Circus, at the foot of the street named in his honour: Shaftesbury Avenue. Anthony Ashley Cooper, 7th Earl of Shaftesbury, died in 1885 at the age of 84. His funeral was held at Westminster Abbey, and he was offered a burial place there, but asked instead to be buried at his home, Wimborne St Giles. The words he chose for his gravestone sum up the philosophy that motivated his life’s work, his generosity and his love: ‘What hast thou that thou didst not receive?’ (1 Cor 4:7) He worked, not to earn God’s favour, but out of gratitude for the blessings, love and salvation the Father had lavished upon him. It took time and effort, it was exhausting and often discouraging, he often felt almost entirely alone in his fight (save for the faithful support of his wife), and his support of the rights of the poor over the profits of the rich alienated him not just from his political colleagues but from his own father, yet considering whether it was worth it, Shaftesbury once wrote:

‘In spite of all vexations, insults, toil, expense, weariness, all loss of political position – in spite of always being secretly despised and often publicly ignored, I would for myself say “Yes”’.

__________

Further reading:

Richard Turnbull, Shaftesbury: The Great Reformer (Lion Hudson, 2010) – a very thorough, detailed account of the many areas of Shaftesbury’s interest and campaigning.
 
Jenny Robertson, I Stand Alone: The Life of Lord Shaftesbury (Scripture Union, 1985) – written for children, but manages to be both thorough and engaging. Turnbull’s book will give you a clear catalogue of the facts, but Robertson’s adds to that a vibrant sense of the man and his character.

In response to this, the elders of my church (Emmanuel Church Oxford) asked me and a few other politically minded guys to discuss what was going on, and then pull together a paper explaining what the cuts will look like in practice and what we could consider doing in response in Oxford.
 
Our main conclusion was that for the Church, this primarily provides an opportunity to serve. Many people, within and outside the church community, will find themselves in need. Christians have a chance to love and serve in practical ways motivated by our love for Christ and his command to serve the poor.
 
But we are also presented with a longer-term opportunity. For the first time in a generation people are discussing what the role of the state actually is as the government stops providing some services and welfare payments. The Church has the chance to position itself as an alternative provider of these services and of support for the poor. Christians need to mobilise themselves to provide services councils can no longer afford to, such as youth services, and to commit to projects such as The Besom Project.
 
This article isn’t about whether the cuts are the right thing to do or not, and it is in no way intended to be party political. It is rather an attempt to make sure that we as Christians are clued up about what’s going on around us, what the implications are, and how our churches can respond.
 
What cuts have been announced?
 
The cuts which have been announced in the June 2010 Budget and the Spending Review can be roughly divided into two categories:
 
Income: Individuals and families could see their incomes reduced through a combination of benefit changes (Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit, Employment and Support Allowance, Tax Credits, and Child Benefit are being reformed or removed from some recipients, and Educational Maintenance Allowance is being abolished), tax rises (VAT rose from 17.5% to 20% on 4 January 2011), and public sector unemployment (330,000 jobs are expected to be lost in the public sector over the next four years).
 
Public services: The public services which people had come to rely on will in many cases face cutbacks or, in some cases, complete abolition, particularly where these services are provided by local authorities. By far the biggest cuts will be seen at a local level. Services provided by local councils are diverse and often go unnoticed by council tax payers. However, the Department for Communities and Local Government received by far the largest cut to its departmental budget – 51% over four years – and this will have a direct impact on the grants which councils receive from central government, falling by 26% over four years. This could affect anything from youth provision to care services.
 
Obviously there is some overlap here, but these categories are useful to bear in mind when considering how best to respond to the government spending reductions.
 
What could the Church consider in response?
 
The impact of these cuts on individuals and families will be far from uniform: some may notice no change or only a modest change in their financial circumstances, whereas those facing unemployment obviously face considerably more hardship. Churches must be aware that people in general could be proportionally worse off than they have been thus far, some drastically so. In response, we could consider the following:
 
Job clubs: Acknowledging the fact that more people are currently unemployed than at any point in the last ten years, with only relatively small economic growth predicted for the next few years, job clubs are an appropriate response. These could give people the confidence and skills to give them the best possible chance of employment in a very competitive market.
 
CAP: Christians Against Poverty has been something of a phenomenon since its foundation, and its reputation beyond the Church is very high indeed. It could be worth exploring the possibility of having people trained as CAP Debt Counsellors, who can help those in dire straits to plan their way out of trouble by helping them budget and renegotiating loans with the bank.
 
Openness and discussion: Poverty and joblessness are perceived to be something of a taboo, particularly among the aspirational working classes and middle classes. Those in need are unlikely to say that they need help. Within a church, this could mean being frank about the issue in preaching etc. Beyond the church community, practical means such as CAP, CEF and job clubs are good ways to practically love and serve those most in need.
 
Meals: Food costs are a significant part of anyone’s monthly outgoings, and they are currently rising above the general rate of inflation. If meals were to be provided, hopefully on an informal but regular basis for those in a church who are in need, this could be a huge blessing.
 
Foodbanks: Foodbanks practically serve those who cannot afford to buy food. Churches could encourage their members to give to these charities (usually locally run), or even offer administrative support.
 
Besom: The Besom Project enables people to use their time, money and skills to help the poorest and most vulnerable in society. It is possible that the number of people requiring help from projects such as Besom will increase, but whether or not there is an increase, serving in such projects is a practical and loving demonstration of our love for the poor, which is especially pertinent in these tough economic times.
 
Childcare: The Sure Start programme was introduced by the Labour Government which combined childcare, early education, health and family support. Funding for the service is likely to be cut: the majority of councils are unable to give guarantees about the future of the service. Providing similar albeit scaled down services such as mother and toddler groups could be a way of stepping into the gap created by the closure of Sure Start centres.
 
Youth provision: Youth services it seems have been particularly vulnerable when local councils have been considering which services to cut. Churches should examine as a matter of urgency how they could work with councils to provide similar services funded from their own budgets and staffed with some of their own volunteers.
 
Community centres: Some councils are considering the idea of giving smaller community centres and green spaces over to local communities to own and manage themselves. Churches could explore the possibility of working with communities, ideally where there is already a link, to run these.

Parks and green spaces: One of the easiest areas for a council to cut will be in the upkeep of green spaces, reducing the frequency or extent of the work it does. Church members may consider volunteering to tidy community spaces near where they live.
 
Conclusion
 
The Church always has an obligation to help the poor, both within and outside the church community. Many of these suggestions will therefore be applicable to any point in an economic cycle; indeed Jesus himself reminds his disciples that ‘you will always have the poor among you’ (John 12:8). However, the spending cuts we in Britain are currently faced with provide an opportunity for the Church to make a fresh, concerted effort to help the financially worse off, enhancing its profile in the community as it does so.
 
Whilst meeting short term felt needs is imperative, it is also crucial for the Church to be taking a longer term view about its role in communities, and indeed the country. As a result of both the spending cuts and the Conservatives’ ‘Big Society’ initiative, for the first time in a generation the role of the state is up for question. Christians cannot afford to miss out on this opportunity: as the Government steps back from provision of welfare and public services, the Church should be the most high profile group filling the void.
 
This is an edited version of a longer article, originally written for Emmanuel Church Oxford. To read the full article, click here

So when the two come together to talk about the place of religion in the secular state, as they did a few weeks ago in an op-ed piece, it makes fascinating reading. The arguments Fish puts forward in the first half of his article are, for my money, about as definitive a statement of the way secularists think about religion as you’re likely to find anywhere. And they are, in places, very problematic.

He begins his piece, Religion and the Liberal State Once Again, uncontroversially:

You are free to believe that salvation comes only through faith in Jesus Christ and to order your behaviour accordingly. You are not free to coerce others, either by physical force or the force of law, to share your faith and behave as you do.

 
Which is nice. Freedom to follow and worship Jesus, freedom from coercion to believe or behave in a certain way: pretty much what Paul was urging Timothy to pray for in 1 Timothy 2:1-4.
 
Then things become, suddenly, much more restrictive:

The key distinction underlying classical liberalism is the distinction between the private and the public. This distinction allows the sphere of political deliberation to be insulated from the intractable oppositions that immediately surface when religious viewpoints are put on the table. Liberalism tells us that religious viewpoints should be confined to the home, the heart, the place of worship and the personal relationship between oneself and one’s God.

 
The leap here is massive. In a flash, we have jumped from ‘you cannot coerce others to believe’, to ‘you cannot bring your religious viewpoints into the public sphere’, without pausing for breath. This is not the place to reflect on how much trouble this assumption has caused, particularly when Western governments have got involved in the Middle East. But it is fascinating that beneath this statement, expressed in the world’s leading newspaper by one of the world’s leading thinkers, is the idea that, for religion not to become coercive, it is necessary that religion not become public. Put the other way round, it is assumed that a non-coercive religion which engages in the public square is impossible.
 
There are so many counterexamples that it is hard to know where to start, but consider the Amish for a moment. It is not clear that the very public nature of many of their faith expressions – dress, housing, technology, trading practices, community formation, schooling, and so on – has ever conflicted with their five hundred year old, Anabaptist tradition of non-coercion. And that makes me wonder: does freedom to worship really require a faith that has no public expression at all, and which is confined to the home, the heart and the church? Or is it perfectly possible to express religious values publicly and peacefully, so long as – and this is crucial – those religious values include non-coercion, non-violence and so on?
 
So let’s say one were to stumble across a group of religious people whose founder, and whose sacred texts, urged love for God, love for one’s neighbour, love for one’s enemies and non-violence, and who consistently, despite the high-profile excesses of a few, adhered to those principles. And let’s say that, at the same time, the heart of those people’s religious beliefs was Iesous Kurios – that Jesus, not Caesar or Obama or Cameron or Merkel, was Lord of the world, and that their announcement of this fact was a very public statement. What then? We would suddenly have what Stanley Fish apparently regards as impossible: a decidedly non-coercive, yet emphatically public, religious belief.
 
Now to be fair to Fish, he may not believe that public religious beliefs are necessarily coercive. He may just be saying that, because they sometimes are, we’re better off without them. But the problem is, virtually any worldview articulated in public could, in the wrong circumstances, lead to coercion. Free market economics has. So has economic redistribution. So has environmentalism. And atheism. And opposition to higher tuition fees. And numerous other beliefs that, for all I know, most New York Times op-ed writers might well share. This doesn’t mean that those beliefs are evil, or (in Fish’s terms) that they should be constrained to the realm of the home, heart and the church. It simply means that coercion and violence are always wrong in a liberal state, and that allowing them under the guise of religion is reprehensible.
 
Now consider one more paragraph:

When the liberal citizen exits the private realm and enters the public square, he or she is supposed to leave religious commitments behind and function as a stripped-down entity, as an abstract-not-full personage, who makes political decisions not as a Jew or a Christian or a Muslim but as what political scientist Michael Sandel calls an “unencumbered self”, a self unencumbered by ethnic, racial, gender, class or religious identities.

 
I find this extraordinary. In the public square, we are not to engage through the self, the real one, with its strong preferences formed by ethnicity, gender, memory, religion, culture, class and so on (how many citizens, let alone politicians, would that disqualify?) Instead, we are to engage through a totally neutral socio-political avatar: unencumbered, genderless, classless, religionless, preferenceless. At one level, I appreciate Fish grouping religion together with ethnicity, gender and class, if only because it shows how ludicrous it is to exclude those things from the public space (unless we are to make people’s gender a “private matter” for “the home, the heart and the church” – and what on earth would that mean?) But at another level, I find myself wondering whether this isn’t simply an attempt to seize any passing sociological argument and dragoon it into service to support an implausible position.
 
In a liberal state, we cannot have people imposing religious laws on an unwilling populace, and we cannot have violence or coercion used to gain religious adherents. But to leap from this to saying that religion (and apparently gender, class and the rest) should always be excluded from any public discourse is … well, somewhat fishy.

Elizabeth was born in 1780 and grew up ‘Betsy’ Gurney, living in her family home of Earlham Hall in Norfolk. When Betsy was 17 she heard the Quaker Minister William Savery preach and recorded in her journal ‘today I have felt there is a God’.[2] Betsy’s sister Kitty implored her not to mention her conversion to her younger siblings and outwardly Betsy complied, but her beliefs started to inspire her to focus her energy on helping the needy in her native city of Norwich.[3] A second spur to the direction of this young woman’s life came in the shape of another Quaker Minister, Deborah Darby, who prophesied that Betsy was to be ‘a light to the blind, speech to the dumb and feet to the lame’.[4] At the age of 20 Elizabeth started to don the Quaker cap which was to frame her face in history. This did little to deter the admiration of Joseph Fry, and a year after meeting the couple became engaged. As a new century struck, Mrs. Fry set off to make a new life with her husband in London.

Newgate Prison was a landmark at the heart of eighteenth century London, standing where the Old Bailey now resides. Its walls rose sheer up to the cornice in rusticated blocks of masonry, decorated with the figures of Liberty and Plenty with her cornucopia.[5] Picturesque aesthetics masked a multitude of forgotten prisoners from public sight. In 1813 a French Quaker called Stephen Grellet ventured behind Newgate’s walls. He was horrified by what he witnessed and hurried to his friend Elizabeth Fry’s house to ask her for help. That next morning Elizabeth and Anna Buxton discovered over 300 women confined to four small rooms, straw covering the floor on which the women had to sleep in a space no larger than six foot by two. The overcrowding, poor food and lack of fresh air caused typhus to regularly spread amongst the inhabitants. Nothing more like a ‘tomb for the living’ could have been contrived for human misery.[6] A contemporary observer recorded Elizabeth’s remarkable approach ‘I have come to serve you, if you will allow me’ she said. Elizabeth then went on to express her sympathy for them and offer hope that they might improve their condition. She did not say a word about the crimes they had committed, nor reproach them. She came to comfort and not condemn.[7]

Elizabeth arrived at Newgate during a pivotal moment of crisis, when a stagnated system was in visible decay but the road to change appeared steeped in a fog of ambiguity. By 1813 the Napoleonic wars were causing widespread economic distress and the wretchedly poor, oppressed by the high price of food and rising unemployment increasingly turned to crime and prostitution in order to feed their families. In the face of a violent rise in criminal activity, the government sought to simply lock away or dispense with the perpetrators. The death sentence was given out for over 200 acts, including among the lesser offences the theft of a handkerchief. It has been suggested that in no other European country were there so many offences in the statute book that demanded the death penalty.[8]  It was against this backdrop that Elizabeth, driven by her religious compassion, challenged the official belief that female prisoners were hopeless and beyond redemption. She fought for a school to be started in the prison, and established the ‘Ladies Association for the Improvement of the Female Prisoners in Newgate’, campaigning to provide the women with paid work. In less than a year the woman of Newgate had made over 20,000 articles for sale, hopelessness started to dissipate and the teaching of self-worth gained ground. This transformation did not go unnoticed.

Thomas Fowell Buxton, an MP and Elizabeth’s brother-in-law, had noted that prisons were places where ‘the public eye does not penetrate and therefore public opinion is not excited’.[9] Although Elizabeth shrank from personal publicity she realised the critical importance of bringing her cause into the public’s consciousness. When the King of Prussia visited England she arranged that his first port of call should be Newgate, and so he went followed by all the Sheriffs of the City of London.[10] Elizabeth brought many into the prison, forcing them to confront the extreme contradictions of the Regency period, one of the most segmented in British history. In Newgate the wealthy and elegant immersed in a world of pleasure met with those bound in the brutal depths of poverty. To attend a morning meeting in the prison required a much sought after permit and bundles of observers would watch as Elizabeth in her low, melodious voice read the Bible to the assembled prisoners and explained carefully its message of love and hope for them. An American ambassador stationed in London wrote ‘I have seen the two great sights of London; St Paul’s Cathedral and Mrs Fry reading the Bible to the prisoners of Newgate’. [11]

Elizabeth did not simply turn prison reform into a fashionable cause, but concrete change was guaranteed when mercy started to appear in the statute books of the nation. She was called upon twice to give evidence to parliamentary committees, in 1818 and later in 1835. Addressing the MP’s Elizabeth spoke eloquently on the positive effects of kindness, harsh punishment might deter people from crime in the short run but it could not change the heart.[12] Her argument that prisons were institutions which should see the restoration of lives and should not simply be designed to enact strict retribution shook the cornerstones of established policy. However, in Westminster Elizabeth became accredited for her ‘genius of good’ and her ally Sir Robert Peel eventually introduced new legislation shaped by her pioneering work at Newgate.

A truly remarkable achievement, set as it was during a century when a female’s professional opinion was so rarely courted by those in authority. She spoke on behalf of the voiceless and oppressed to the leaders of political parties, for whom she could not even vote. When among the guests at a dinner party in Mansion House she took unabashed advantage of being seated in between the Prime Minister and Prince Albert to voice her concerns about the amount of power the often brutal gaolers held in prisons. Elizabeth then cross questioned the Secretary of State, the Foreign Secretary and the Colonial Secretary over differing aspects of international prison reform.[13] Hardly the most jovial of guests, but her goodness, dignity and perseverance proved irresistible and change followed in her wake. Maybe like Wilberforce and his fellow abolitionists Elizabeth had prayed for the ability to ‘turn the hearts of the powerful, so they may be prone to feel for, and prompted to help those whose bodies and souls are in slavery’.[14]

Elizabeth’s prison committees were to be replicated all over England, Scotland and Wales. She was an able organiser who knew the value of picking the right people and trusting them to do what was required. As early as 1819 two prison committees had sprung up in Paris due to ‘le bon exemple de Mme Fry’ and in St Petersburg ladies of the Russian Court set up committees to visit female prisoners. Elizabeth would travel across France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark and Germany inspecting prisons, addressing governments and revealing the human faces behind prison bars. Her humanitarian reach even extended to New South Wales and North Norfolk Island in Australia when she brought the cause of females caught under the transportation sentence to Whitehall’s attention. Elizabeth visited over 120 convict ships set to leave London, providing gifts and encouragement to the 12,000 women on board.[15] Not being completely satisfied she also set up night shelters for the homeless and a refuge for prostitutes in London. By 1840 Elizabeth, now in her sixties, had become concerned with the poor conditions in English hospitals and envisioning a new generation of skilled nurses founded a training house in Guy’s Hospital. When Florence Nightingale was a young woman in her twenties she visited Mrs. Fry, her senior inspiration, and explained her desire to serve God through nursing. Elizabeth recommended a school at which she could receive her training and eventually a number of ‘Fry’s nurses’ would travel with Florence Nightingale to the Crimea.[16] Elizabeth died on 12 October 1845 and was buried in Barking. Over a thousand people turned out to show their respect for a woman who had not shown weariness in her well doing.

Having gone into our purses and pockets, do people now know more about this truly inspiring figure? Her presence in every household has done little to make her a modern household name. This may well have sat comfortably with one whose humility was deep seated. However, a lady whose boundless compassion led her to battle the injustices entrenched in the penal system of her day, who won the respect of convicts and Kings but who ministered to the common humanity in both alike, makes her, beyond question, noteworthy. She is a member of the numerous great and good who have been galvanised into action by their Christian faith and who have positively transformed the society in which they were placed. Her statue now stands at the centre of the Old Bailey Court in London and one can only speculate about what she may conclude on all she surveys.[17]

Endnotes:
[1] BBC News, Tuesday the 21st of May, 2002 ‘The Five Pound Question: Who is Elizabeth Fry?’
[2] June Rose, ‘Prison Pioneer- the Story of Elizabeth Fry’ (Quaker Tapestry booklets, 1994) pp.6
[3] Ibid. pp. 8
[4] Kitty Barne, ‘Elizabeth Fry’ (Penguin Books, 1950) pp. 54
[5] Janet Whitney, ‘Elizabeth Fry Quaker Heroine’ (George G Harrap &Co, 1937) pp. 183
[6] Dennis Bardens, ‘Elizabeth Fry, Britain’s Second Lady on the Five-Pound Note’ (Cahanadon Publications, 2004) pp. 38
[7] ‘Active Benevolence’ in ‘The Hangman’, Vol 1, No.4, Boston, Wed. Jan. 22, 1845.
[8] J. B Priestley, ‘The prince of pleasure and his regency 1811 – 20’(Penguin books, 2002) pp. 37-38
[9] Kitty Barne, ‘Elizabeth Fry’ (Penguin Books, 1950) pp 113
[10] Dennis Bardens, ‘Elizabeth Fry, Britain’s Second Lady on the Five-Pound Note’ (Cahanadon Publications, 2004) pp. 91
[11] Ibid. pp. 159
[12] June Rose, ‘Prison Pioneer- the Story of Elizabeth Fry’ (Quaker Tapestry booklets, 1994) pp. 25
[13] June Rose, ‘Elizabeth Fry’ (Tempus, 2007) pp. 253
[14] Daniel Boucher ‘The Abolition of Slavery and Public Christianity’ Equalities Series: Paper 1 (Care,2009) pp. 43
[15] Geoffrey Hanks, ‘Friend of Prisoners’ (REP, 1981) pp. 23
[16] June Rose, ‘Elizabeth Fry’ (Tempus, 2007) pp. 237
[17] Dennis Bardens, ‘Elizabeth Fry, Britain’s Second Lady on the Five-Pound Note’ (Cahanadon Publications, 2004) pp. 93

Paul begins Romans 13 by saying that ‘Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God’[1].

At first glance this might appear to suggest that, given that God Himself has ‘established’ the state, a Christian’s attitude should be uncritical and subservient. I want to suggest, however, that this view is way off. The tragic example of the German church during WW2, supine in the face of much of the Nazi horror machine, illustrates how way off it can be.

What does Paul say that the state is for? The administration of justice, for one thing. We are told that ‘[the ruler] is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer’[2]. Paul here affirms the secular legal system as a way of redressing wrongs, with personal vengeance forbidden.

Paul also affirms taxation as a way of financing the state’s running costs: ‘this is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing.’[3]

Of course, the Bible is not a guide for statecraft and we should be vary wary of reading it as such, but in this passage Paul, it might be argued, is suggesting that the state’s demands of us should be limited to raising enough tax to fund itself and administering justice (the legal kind). All in all, the maintaining of order.

It would be foolish to ignore the social context of Paul’s letter. Part of Paul’s purpose in writing to the Roman Christians was to calm them down; some believers were making revolutionary noises and Paul wanted to convict them of the ungodliness of violently overthrowing their government. He wanted to impress upon them that their struggle was spiritual, not political.

Similarly, in 2 Corinthians: ‘For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds.’[4]. Verses like this can be challenging to Christians working in politics, especially at campaign time, when things can get dirty - it is often very difficult to focus on our ultimate calling as Christians and not to ‘wage war as the world does’ in this sense.

What these passages make clear is that, whilst God does ordain worldly authorities, there is a fundamental distinction between these two kingdoms. Jesus of course told us that ‘[his] kingdom is not of this world’[5] and that we should ‘Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.’[6]

In saying this Jesus was also implying limits to our submission to the state. There are some things that are God’s, which ‘Caesar’ has no claim to. Worship being the main one. When the state demands our worship, then it has taken the place of God and cannot command our obedience in as much as it does that.

In Romans 13 Paul tells us that governments are the servants of God. Even though he has ‘ordained’ them, then, they are subject to his standards and authority. I want to suggest that, as Christians, we have a role in ensuring that our governments are held accountable to their creator. When appropriate, we should speak truth to power. It’s true that Paul doesn’t encourage his brothers and sisters to be politically engaged, but context is again important here: he was not writing to citizens in a representative democracy, but a dictatorship, so engagement was not an option.

(As an aside, I find it interesting that the concept of the state being subject to a higher authority, is mirrored in (secular) legal theory by the concept of the rule of law, popularised by A V Dicey in the 19th Century[7]. The relevant piece of his thinking is the principle that all are equal before the law, including governments. Another parallel is that of 20th Century legal thinkers to assert the innate dignity of all human beings through ‘discovered’ universal human rights, usually without reference to faith[8]. The law therefore presents good opportunities for apologetics.)

But what about civil disobedience? As Mark Driscoll pointed out in his sermon on this topic to Mars Hill early last year[9], awareness of our innate rebelliousness is a good place to start. Since the fall man has been in rebellion against God and disobedience is part of human nature. So we need to be careful.

There are examples in Scripture of God’s people disobeying the powers that be. The first was that of Shifrah and Puah, the midwives who resisted Pharaoh’s order to kill Hebrew babies in Exodus. Jumping ahead to the New Testament we see Peter and John refusing to obey the Sanhedrin’s command not to teach or speak in the name of Jesus: ‘…But Peter and John replied, ‘Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.’[10]

One chapter later, again ordered to cease and desist by the Sanhedrin (who wielded state authority, granted by Rome) they reply, ‘We must obey God rather than men!’[11]

There are other examples that tell a similar story; that civil disobedience is justified when the secular authorities require us to disobey God. But, as Driscoll points out[12], in our rebelliousness we will naturally look for loopholes, whereas in reality, most of us aren’t hiding Jews under our floorboards so the occasions when we have to say ‘no’ will be very few. Of course, times may change, and of course Christians in other countries will be wondering when to disobey on a regular basis.

So if I were to sum up what I believe Scripture is saying, I would use the phrase ‘critical submission’. ‘Submission’ because God has ordained it, and a ‘critical’ approach which holds the state accountable to God’s standards and reserves the right to disobey in certain circumstances.

Another question might be: ok, but what sort of state should Christians desire?

The starting point here has to be one which does not exceed its God-given authority and allows the gospel to be preached. This much is uncontroversial.

And it is true that even for people who work, or are interested, in politics, the invisible kingdom of God should be our primary focus. And yet some states are clearly ‘better’ than others. To take an extreme example, today’s Germany is clearly a ‘better’ state than that of the one 70 years ago. (A similar point was made by CS Lewis to illustrate general revelation through awareness of good & evil[13].)

If we are to go further I want to reiterate my earlier point about Scripture not being a guide to statecraft. Nonetheless I want to make some suggestions; brief ones, as this is a huge topic in itself. I anticipate that debate will follow!

Just as it’s important to be aware of our own fallen nature, it’s equally important to recognise that the state, despite being ordained by God, is fallen too. In 1 Samuel 8 we see this prophet warning God’s people that the king they were crying out for would oppress them. Luke 4: 5-7 shows us that secular governments are under the influence of Satan. Again, we need to remember that Jesus’ kingdom is ‘not of this world’.

If we have the heart of God and passionately desire justice, it is therefore a mistake to invest too much of our hope for it in the state. Scripture does not give us a mandate for utopian political creeds such as socialism, which are at their core materialist. As one of Dostoevsky’s characters points out in The Brothers Karamazov:

‘socialism is not merely a matter of the labor question… but is first and foremost a problem of atheism, a problem of the contemporary incarnation of atheism, a question of the Tower of Babel which is being built without God not in order to reach Heaven from Earth, but in order to bring Heaven down to Earth’[14].

It is of course true that Scripture is full of God’s heart for the poor and the weak, and for justice, and if we ignore this then our faith is pretty much dead. But to say that this gives us the right to enforce this through the coercive power of the state is to go way beyond what Scripture tells us. God’s justice and ‘social justice’ (in the sense of state-enforced wealth redistribution) are not one and the same. This is clear from passages such as Leviticus 19:15: ‘Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favouritism to the great, but judge your neighbour fairly’ (emphasis mine). The Bible does not set the state up as the means of ministering to the needy: that’s the job of individuals, families, and communities. And if we are advocating a small state then we’d better make sure we are ‘salt and light’ by doing the job well.

Christianity is in one sense an exercise of free will; we initially choose to follow Christ, and we have to choose to make ourselves living sacrifices every day. I want to suggest that this principle of non-coercion and freedom should inform our politics. Liberty is preferable to coercion, but it can only take us so far. It’s what we do with our liberty that counts: ‘Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God.’[15]

Lest we forget, Christ preached forgiveness from sin, not economic equality, and as Karl Barth outlines in his The Epistle to the Romans,[16] we Christians should free ourselves from hope in the state. Instead we should place it in Christ, whose kingdom shall never end.

References:
[1] Romans 13:1-3 NIV
[2] Romans 13:4
[3] Romans 13:6
[4] 2 Corinthians 10: 3-4
[5] John 18:36
[6] Luke 20:25
[7] ‘Introduction to the Study of Law of the Constitution’ (1885)
[8] See, for example, Values for a Godless Age, F. Klug, London, Penguin, 2000
[9] ‘Trial: Submission to authority’, 23/02/2009
[10] Acts 4:19-20
[11] Acts 5:29
[12] See note 9 above
[13] Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis, London, Harper Collins, 1997
[14] The Brothers Karamazov, F. Dostoevsky, London, Penguin, 1958 p.26
[15] 1 Peter 2:16
[16] The Epistle to the Romans, Karl Barth, London, Oxford University Press, 1933, p. 477.

Join a Political Party
If you can identify which side of the political spectrum you lean towards, why not join a political party? Once a card-carrying member of a political party, the level of engagement that you opt for depends on you.  It is perfectly possible just to join the party and have a nominal input.  As a paid up member you will be supporting the party’s activity financially.

If you are not sure which party is for you, take your time to read about their beliefs and goals.  Also read their manifestos, although specific policy will change from one election to another.

It is also possible to be a member of the Christian Socialist Movement, the Conservative Christian Fellowship or the Liberal Democrat Christian Forum without being a member of the Party.  However, once you join a party the opportunities for further involvement open up…

Local Party Activist
An ideal first step is to get involved in the local branch of your party.  Depending upon where you live, there will be differing levels of local party activity.  Local parties or associations are made up of party members of all ages and from all walks of life. There are differing levels of involvement ranging from joining the party and providing financial support through to holding office within a local party or association and being responsible for the party’s activities in your area.  Most local parties or associations have regular social events and are great ways to meet other people with similar political views. It is also a really good way to get stuck into your local community.

Elected representative
Town, City, District, County, Borough, Constituency, Region… whichever level of local, regional or national government you might have the opportunity to become involved in, they all offer means of changing the area in which you live for the better. 

Candidates for elections generally represent a specific party.  Having got involved in your local party, the opportunity to stand as a local candidate may then follow.  In areas where your preferred party has control of the local authority, there is opportunity to significantly impact the way in which your local area is run.  Furthermore, being part of an effective local opposition party is also essential; it is not just national politicians who need holding to account. 

Similarly, there are opportunities to stand for election to the various regional and national assemblies – the Scottish Parliament, Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies, the House of Commons and the European Parliament. However, it is worth noting that most people start their political career at a local level. Experience counts and hard work in local politics tends to be a key step on the road to election to any position, local or national.

Working for an MP
The structure and composition of a Member of Parliament’s office varies greatly. Some run the majority of their work from the constituency, others run everything from the House of Commons, and there are those who do a mixture of both! However, they all have staff of some description; Personal Assistant, Secretary, Caseworker, Constituency Assistant, Researcher, Political Assistant, Chief of Staff, Policy Advisor…the list is endless! Working in a constituency office, or in Westminster itself is often billed as a role for a new graduate with an interest in politics, providing a perfect introduction to the workings of Parliamentary politics, and a great stepping-stone to a career in a whole host of fields. Often graduates spend only one or two years working for an MP. Some may feel a specific calling to politics for just a few years, others realise the value of political experience in the pursuit of their dream career. Yet, there are also those who believe they are called to work for an MP on a more long-term basis. There are many Christians working in Parliament, based in the offices of MPs who believe their role in politics is in serving politicians, both Christian and non-Christian. Furthermore, there are those who believe they have been placed in Parliament to support all Christians in politics, those who feel called to Parliament to pray, and those who work as staff of the Houses of Parliament and serve the many hundreds of people working within the Palace of Westminster, and see this as their vocation. God is also calling Christians to serve him in all political institutions, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the European Parliament. 

Working for a Political Party
There are a wide variety of employed positions within the different political parties. Whilst not all Christians working for the Party in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff or Brussels may feel that they are doing so as a result of a direct calling from God, if you believe that God uses you wherever he places you, then having Christians working in these fields is incredibly important. Whether working to support the IT network at Conservative Campaign Headquarters, working for the Labour Press Office, in the Liberal Democrat Policy Unit, or within a human resources department, all positions are vital to the working of the Party itself, and provide a valuable means to be a Christian to others working for the Party.

Think Tank
A Think Tank is an organisation or group of experts researching and advising on issues of society, science, technology, industry, or business. They seek to influence policy formation by providing research and developing ideas that could be translated into legislation, or which can be used to challenge the thinking around certain legislative areas within government. Some Think Tanks have a Christian remit. They are seeking to influence the political climate in a way that is specifically based upon Biblical principles. However, there are also those with no Christian basis. Whatever the basis of the organisation, working in this field provides yet another opportunity to bring Christian values into a further arena within politics.

www.w4mp.org - website advertising a wide range of political jobs
www.christiansinpolitics.org.uk
www.christiansinparliament.org.uk
www.susa.info

Her name is Hannah More, and she’s one of my heroes. What William Wilberforce was among men, More was among women.

At just 29 years old she arrived in a London that had given itself over to decadence and indulgence. Annual gin consumption had risen as high as three gallons per person; addictive gambling was commonplace, sexual promiscuity the norm, and church attendance dwindling. She believed the numbing of moral values was a natural consequence of the visible decline of religion, and so she gave her life to bringing about a moral revolution. And she succeeded.

Those ‘stiff upper lip’ values of character, integrity and morality that are often characterised in re-enactments of Austen’s famous novels today are owed in part to Hannah More and her passion for transforming society. She won the fight for the minds and opinions of her generation, she made ‘goodness’ fashionable and Britain was forever different for the part she played in it.

Over the next 100 years, there will be a clean sweep of humanity, and none of us will be here to see what our nation looks like then. Given that we’ll spend the best part of 70,000 hours in our places of work over our life-times, if we’re at all motivated by More’s example, that’s the place we’ll most likely bring about change and leave our worlds better off for our involvement within it.

There’s bad news though. This isn’t exactly an easy task. There’s no silver bullet nor quick-fix solution. And our battles will look very different. The fight for justice in politics is different from the battle for cleaner streets in your community, and the challenge of changing the media’s obsession with sex will look very different from bringing about strong family values in education.

Nonetheless, this seminar aims to provide opportunities for networking with like-minded people, offer practical help on taking steps forward in the workplace, and bring broad brush-strokes that help paint the picture of what could be accomplished over a life-time.

“If there ever was a period in which the demand for elevating the tone of Christianity, principles and conduct was more imperative than another, that period is the present.”
Hannah More, ‘Thought on the Importance of Manners of the Great to General Society’ (T Cadell, 1799)