In February 2008, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams gave the foundation lecture at the Royal Courts of Justice entitled ‘Civil and Religious Law in England: a Religious Perspective’.Footnote ¹ The lecture became notorious because it received an intensely hostile reaction from the British press, who, perhaps intentionally, chose to misrepresent Dr Williams as calling for the Sharia to be introduced as a parallel legal system in Britain. In fact, Dr Williams' theme was to warn against the universalism of an abstract rights-based legal system that left no space for religion or culture generally in relation to the various identities and affiliations that we have as human beings.

In this book, Lord Harries (formerly Bishop of Oxford and currently Gresham Professor of Divinity and Honorary Professor of Theology at King's College London) makes similar arguments both for the recognition of Christianity as a vital historical source of our political framework and structures and for a continued role for well reasoned Christian thought and principles to be heard in our politics. Writing in the light of increasing globalisation and in the aftermath of the global financial crisis and the scandal over MP's expenses, his concern is to reveal the Christian roots of our political values to help us to see that liberal democracy and the institutions that underpin it cannot be taken for granted. Metaphorically speaking, he is worried that we may be so preoccupied in consuming or ignoring the fruits of liberal democracy that we may lose sight of (or forget completely) how the fruit tree was planted and how it needs to be continually nurtured.

This is an important and timely book from someone who has been at the heart of our country's political and spiritual life for several decades and it deserves a wide readership. Unlike some religious leaders, Lord Harries does not attempt to criticise the Enlightenment but recognises its important contribution to the development of the rule of law, democracy and human rights. Equally, he is not defensive about reminding us that the very purpose of this development was to allow and secure the flourishing of human beings in the widest sense of lives lived together in community for the common good and not simply as a means of pursuing our own selfish goals. He is emphatic, clear and convincing that this vision of what it means to be human was Christian and that this same Christian voice needs to be heard and listened to again in public life, if that vision is to survive.

Lord Harries accepts that Christianity's role in the formation of a just society has not been unblemished and he refers to a number of examples of which he is critical eg the lack of religious tolerance in the struggle to secure the right to religious freedom in the seventeenth century (p 73) and the continued pursuit by some of an unqualified view of natural law on certain issues (p 92). Lord Harries argues that ‘people should be given the maximum freedom to make their own choice’ but that this should be balanced by continuous moral debate. (pp 44–45) At any one time, law and political policy will be the product of that debate and it is on that basis he argues, for example, that ‘marriage exists for a particular purpose, and as such enshrines a particular understanding of what is good in society, and, by extension, a civil partnership can do the same.’ (p 21) Why are such views, so clearly established and held with integrity by so many Christians and non-Christians alike, at the same time, regarded by others as being so emotive, dangerous and divisive that they are barely permitted a place in civil rational debate? Drawing on recent books by Michael SandelFootnote ² and Amartya Sen,Footnote ³ Lord Harries wants to take us to a place where debates about what constitute a good life and a just society are conducted in ‘a public culture hospitable to the disagreements that will inevitably arise’. (p 128)Footnote ⁴

Lord Harries' interests and expertise overlap many areas relevant to public life and, as a bishop, he is also deeply rooted in the practice and language of prayer, liturgy, biblical study and theology. This is a particular strength of the book. However, perhaps because of the constraints of space, there are times when the tone changes to become almost ‘sermon-like’ in the sense that it seems to become directed towards a reader who also believes (eg p 100). Nevertheless, Lord Harries realises that it is the task of exploring and communicating the stories, images, concepts, understandings and values of Christianity to a more sceptical and increasingly theologically illiterate audience that will ultimately encourage religious perspectives to be valued and retained in the public arena.

Lord Harries has seen the risks. His own milieu is of a post-World War II era unified in so many ways and not least in its faith but also a shared religious language that permeated society, including Christians and non-Christians alike. As many sections of the public lose familiarity with that religious language, so they may lose touch with the values, qualities and characteristics that take form and grow from the use of that language. Lord Harries stands as an exceptional example of how, publicly, to inhabit the religious and secular realms. While he is keen to warn that a lack of reason can only serve to entrench religious tradition and custom, he insists on a politics that values well reasoned critical scrutiny from different perspectives. He wants space for the religious voice to be one of the many engaged in the political process. In the early 21st century, the inevitability of liberal democracy and the rule of law cannot be guaranteed. Everyone needs to be allowed to play their part in ensuring the justification and resilience of these principles.