People do like to talk about “returning to British values” or to “Christian values”! But they are less clear precisely what those values actually are. And if we could agree on the values we think are Christian, would those values be the ones we would like to see in a good society? I’d like to think that a society based on Christian values would be a good one!
The first problem with defining “British values” lies in deciding whether we’re looking for values which are exclusively British, or for values shared by others which we subscribe to and want to share as well. I think we have to go for the second definition – surely any values which a nation believes in would be embraced by other nations too. We may have some idiosyncrasies, but on the whole, things that make Britain a good place to live make other places good too.
You can apply the same thought process to defining “Christian values” – values which are exclusively Christian, or working out which human values are part of the Christian faith and which are not. Again, I’d go with the second option as I’d be surprised to find any values which we might consider Christian which are not shared by other religions.
That was the easy part – much harder to decide what those values actually are. And different Christians will have many different opinions.
One place to start is to ask what are the values we would like to see in a good society and then to ask if these are Christian values. What makes a good society? What does a society which works for the benefit of all look like? This is a question which Church Action on Poverty has been asking in conversations round the country.
My dissertation was based on research about values. You can read more about this research on the Common Cause website. It suggests that values based on intrinsic motivations are generally associated with behaviour that promotes the common good rather than just individual gain. This is in contrast to values which rely on extrinsic rewards making people less likely to act for the common good.
This set me wondering – are the values which promote the common good the same as Christian values? And what are these values?
The research sorts the values into groups, and two groups in particular are associated with behaviour which benefits others (pro-social behaviour such as buying fair trade products, action to mitigate climate change, concern about inequality). One group, labelled Benevolence, is particularly linked to behaviour which helps family and friends. This includes values of mature love, forgiving, meaning in life, true friendship, a spiritual life, helpful, honest, responsible and loyal. I think it is uncontroversial to say that these are Christian values.
But the group of values most strongly associated with pro-social behaviour is the one labelled Universalism. This includes social justice, equality, a world at peace, broadminded, unity with nature, a world of beauty, wisdom, inner harmony, and protecting the environment. And the opposite group (Power), most strongly associated with stopping people engage in pro-social behaviour, includes social recognition, preserving my public image, wealth, social power, and authority.
This is where I am challenged. The values in the Universalism group do not seem to be obviously Christian. Do I reject them as nice but not central to the Christian faith, even though promoting them is likely to bring about the biggest changes for the benefit of all? Or is my view of Christian values too small?
It was the Beatitudes which convinced me. A radical manifesto to challenge the structural injustice in society. This short passage turns the Power values on their head, and instead of placing importance on wealth, status and power, Jesus says that the poor, the meek and the persecuted are blessed. Also blessed are those who stand with the poor in spirit, who hunger for righteousness and justice, who seek to bring peace and whose motivation is pure – values of equality, social justice, a world at peace and inner harmony.
I don’t think the Beatitudes are an exhaustive account of Christian values, but they are a representative one. Within them we find that the values within Universalism are Christian values. There are a few gaps, most notably those concerned with the environment, which may be why it has taken the church so long to wake up to its environmental responsibility. But most stark is the comprehensive rejection in the Beatitudes of Power values. It is in the not seeking after power, wealth and status that Christianity finds itself most at odds with the world we live in.
A good society cares for everyone and works for the interest of the common good. It considers its impact on all, not just those in its immediate neighbourhood. I think a society displaying the intrinsic values identified by Common Cause is most likely to become a good society, values which we can also identify as Christian values. We can find these values in a gospel which tells us to love our neighbour, to speak out for justice and righteousness, and to reject the self-serving interests of status and power.
This is a slightly longer version of my blog written for Church Action on Poverty, which you can find here.
It’s often said that following Christ is ‘counter-cultural’. But mostly it doesn’t feel like it. My life feels much the same as everyone else’s – shopping, cooking, watching TV, wasting time on Facebook, worrying about which school the kids will go to. I try to make some ethical choices, like recycling or buying Fair Trade. I guess praying and spending Sunday morning in church mark me out a bit, but generally I don’t feel much different to the people around me. Then I come up against someone who really doesn’t get the choices I’ve made. Why did I leave a perfectly good career? Now I’m tentatively looking for a job, why would I choose to look for a job with a charity in a city 35 miles away when there must be plenty other jobs in the city where I live? And then I see that it is my motivation that is counter-cultural. Perhaps not explicitly Christian, but not the wisdom of the world to reject ambition, money and status and instead be seeking a better society based on social justice, equality and peace.
Which brings me back to the other question that spins round my mind, on the match up between Christian values and ‘Universalism’ values as discussed by Common Cause.
Actually, there’s been a lot of discussion in the last few weeks about values, especially British values. And whenever someone comes up with a set of values, someone else is guaranteed to say that the values are not British because they are important to other people too. So, let’s approach this from the opposite direction. I’m not looking for values which are exclusively Christian – I’m not sure there are any. But I do want to consider the values that Christianity espouses and those it rejects, and to see where they fall on Schwarz’s values circumplex (sorry it’s hard to read).
And what brought all these thoughts together was the service at church last week on the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3-12). Here, surely, we have it laid out before us the full extent of Christianity’s counter-cultural-ness. And as good a place as any to see the values considered important to Christians and compare them to Schwarz’s universal human values.
3 ‘Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 ‘Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
I’ve never studied theology, and make no claim to be a theologian, though I will tell you I’m a linguist. So, I can only offer you a discourse analysis and not a theological point of view. The first problem is pinning down the meaning of the word ‘blessed’, so I’m not going to do that. Suffice it to say, for the purposes of this analysis, if something is blessed, we can assume that it is considered valuable, and therefore these qualities are the ones that are important – to Jesus at least!
The second problem is working out what is meant by ‘poor in spirit’. Most people I know will work with a paraphrase ‘spiritually poor’, meaning their life of faith and relationship with God could do with some work. But I have read commentaries from others who suggest a meaning more akin to identifying with the poor – being with them in spirit if not in reality. Interestingly, there is another version of these words in Luke, which has Jesus saying “Blessed are you who are poor” and later “Blessed are you who hunger now”, making the whole thing much more about a physical status than a spiritual one.
Leaving these questions unresolved to one side, it is still possible to consider the things which are described as blessed in order to see which values are given value by Jesus, and which are not, and to map these if possible to universal human values as described by psychologists.
It’s not straightforward though! Let’s start from the bottom up! Verses 10 to 12 describe us as blessed when we are persecuted, insulted and lied about. This doesn’t look like a value in itself, but it is clearly opposite to values like ‘preserving my public image’ and ‘social recognition’. The verses say that being persecuted is a sign of blessing because it aligns us with the ancient Hebrew prophets, who said uncomfortable things to the rulers of their day. The prophets spoke about how people and rulers had turned away from God, and time and time again, this was a call to social justice – this brilliant report from Christian Aid explores this in more detail. So I suggest that ‘social justice’ is being lifted up here, but this might be stretching this passage a little.
Next to be considered blessed are the peacemakers – this can be fairly easily translated to the value ‘a world at peace’. Then we have the pure in heart, not so straightforward. One of the features of Jesus’s teaching was the idea that is not just what we do that matters, but what we think as well (see later on in Matthew chapter 5 talking about murder and adultery). Motivation matters – the inward motivation should match the outward expression, should be ‘pure’ rather than ‘mixed’. I think the value ‘inner harmony’ comes closest to expressing this kind of idea, being at peace with ourselves in that what we do does not come into conflict with what we believe about the world.
Being merciful is considered important next, which looks like a match for ‘forgiving’ in the ‘Benevolence’ sector. Hunger and thirst for righteousness could be two things, depending in how ‘righteousness’ is understood. At face value it looks like a straightforward match for ‘social justice’ – wanting to see the right thing done. But this is a human/social understanding of righteousness. If righteousness is understood to mean being right before God, then it could be a better match for ‘inner harmony’, or ‘a spiritual life’ in ‘Benevolence’. Going back to the things that made the Hebrew prophets hot under the collar (eg social structural inequality), then I think a case can be made that to seek righteousness before God also includes seeking righteousness in society. Therefore, placing importance on having ‘a spiritual life’ and a right relationship with God includes placing importance on ‘social justice’. There is also a sense here of a desire to know what is right, possibly a seeking after ‘wisdom’.
Understanding the value of the meek seems easier to follow as a negative – it is clearly opposite to ‘social power’ and ‘authority’. I did wonder whether the value ‘accepting my portion in life’ was appropriate here, but this doesn’t fit with the second part of the verse; blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. While they may not be seeking after power, being meek is not the same as just accepting what comes along, because, in the fullness of time, much more will be due.
It is hard to know why anyone who is mourning should be considered blessed. Even being comforted in the long run doesn’t necessarily make the mourning easier to bear. But perhaps what is being valued here is the capacity to recognise loss. If loss doesn’t make us mourn, then perhaps we are hard-hearted and selfish. And this could be extended beyond personal grief to recognising the loss and pain in a world where there is suffering. Grieving for our world seems like a good quality to me, though I can’t locate it in Schwarz’s circumplex. But if the motivation for exploring these ideas and lifting up intrinsic values is to change human behaviour in order to tackle climate change and global poverty, then a sense grief for what we have lost seems a good place to start.
Finally, the confusing value of the poor in spirit. A more material understanding, as in Luke, suggests this is opposing the value of ‘wealth’. A more spiritual understanding, suggesting that what is needed is a recognition of our own lack of faith and dependence on God is closer to the values ‘humble’ and ‘ a spiritual life’. My preference is to say that we can understand both meanings, especially as I think our spiritual and physical lives can’t be divided up that neatly. How is it realistic to say we are pursuing a life of righteousness when others around us are hungry (James 2:14-17).
I realise there is much more to say about these verses, as I have barely touched on the second half of each “blessing”. But in summary, let’s look at the values which are promoted and the values which are the opposite of what is blessed. It is important to remember that these are universal human values, which we all consider important at different times and in different circumstances. But the things given value by these verses are not compatible with the values in the ‘Power’ segment of the circle – ‘preserving my public image’, ‘social recognition’, ‘social power’, ‘authority’, ‘wealth’. These extrinsic values are least associated with pro-social behaviour.
Most associated with pro-social behaviour are the intrinsic values in the ‘Universalism’ segment. Some of these values are found in the Beatitudes – ‘social justice’ (twice), ‘a world at peace’, ‘inner harmony’ (twice) and ‘wisdom’. There are also values from ‘Benevolence’ – ‘forgiving’ and ‘a spiritual life’ (twice) – and ‘Tradition’ -‘humble’.
Without analysis, I’ve always felt that ‘Benevolence’ values easily fell within Christian values, but that ‘Universalism’ values, while not incompatible, were not obviously Christian. But the Beatitudes fit best within the ‘Universalism’ sector. There are a few gaps, most notably those concerned with the environment, which may be why it has taken the church so long to wake up to its environmental responsibility. And I don’t think the Beatitudes are an exhaustive account of Christian values, just a representative one. But most stark of all is the comprehensive rejection in the Beatitudes of the ‘Power’ values. It is in the not seeking after power, wealth and status that Christianity finds itself most counter-cultural. The question is, is that what Christianity really looks like?
I’m not the only who who has been thinking and writing about values recently. The link above is to a Theos blog describing what a Christian country might be like, based on the kind of values I’ve been thinking about. It sounds like the kind of country I’d like to live in!
Writing recently about whether hard work is a Christian value reminded me why I started this blog. I finished my dissertation and found myself with more questions than answers….
Thinking about values was a key part of my dissertation. Research by Schwartz in the early 90s identified values which are important to people and motivational to the way people live their lives. Further research identified that most of these values are consistently important across societies and cultures around the world. Plotting how much importance people attached to these values showed patterns where certain values cluster together – if one value in a cluster is important to someone, then all of them usually are. Schwartz called these clusters “value types” and identified an underlying motivational goal for each one. For example, values such as social power, wealth, preserving my public image and authority were grouped together as “power”. The value types also have a relationship to each other, with certain types being found together. This relationship brings all the value types together in a circle. So an individual with a tendency towards “power” values would also be likely to rate highly values within “achievement” and “security”, and so on round the circle:
Other values are important to people in different cultures, but Schwartz concentrated on the ones which could be considered universal. They are values which are shared across humanity. We all place different weight on which values are important to us, and this weighting is not static. We change which values we consider to be important depending on what decision we are making and the circumstances we find ourselves in. We are also influenced by other people and the environment around us as to which ones we attach more importance to. The circle above shows how values influence each other. A situation which highlights security values will also raise the importance of power and tradition/conformity. At the same time, it will also diminish the importance of the values directly opposite in the circle – in this case self-direction and stimulation.
The weighting and importance placed on values influences the way we behave. Bringing it back to topics closer to my heart, research was carried out on the values considered more important by people who got involved with issues of social justice such as climate change, global poverty and human rights. People who placed an emphasis on “universalism” values were more likely to have modified their behaviour because of these issues, from recycling to buying Fair Trade. Universalism values are equality, unity with nature, wisdom, a world of beauty, social justice, broad-minded, protecting the environment, a world at peace. This doesn’t seem like rocket science when you see what these values are! Universalism is described as being concerned with the welfare of all people and nature. Second most strongly linked with pro-social behaviour was the “benevolence” value type, described as concern for those around you. These values are helpful, responsible, forgiving, honest, loyal. So far so obvious. But the value types on the opposite side of the circle – power, achievement and, to a lesser extent, security – were associated with not getting involved with this pro-social behaviour.
As I said above, we all have all the values, it is just the importance of each value that differs between us, and this is not static. This begs the question, if the balance of values changes, does this change behaviour? The research suggests that yes, it does. Remember that encouraging the values on one side of the circle diminishes the other side. This means that the emphasis given to power or achievement values can be reduced by promoting universalism and benevolence values. Researchers found effects could be achieved simply by exposing participants to words associated with universalism, and the opposite effect with power words, all compared to controls of neutral words.
Extrapolating from research brings us to this: Issues of climate change, global poverty and human rights are not going away. We do not seem to be able to fully grapple with what we need to do across the whole of society to deal with these issues. If we could encourage the emphasis on universalism values, we would see more people willing to engage and act in pro-social ways. These values are part of every person’s value set, we don’t need to change people, just encourage what is already within. But a quick look around the influences in our society, especially advertising and the media, reveals that we are bombarded with messages emphasising the importance of power and achievement values. I’m starting to see articles in the paper about this, such as this one about the link between materialism and lack of empathy. It’s a big job, but one that can start wherever you are, encouraging values of equality, social justice, unity with nature etc by what we say, how we treat people, the metaphors we use, the motivations that drive us.
I came away from my dissertation enthusiastic to promote these values, and I still feel this way. I really want to encourage them in the church, and that is what set me thinking. If I am promoting justice, wisdom, equality etc am I not just promoting Christianity? Trying to embody these values feels to me like trying to be more like Jesus. Should I focus on the values, or focus on sharing my faith, because the values follow on naturally? Are they compatible or mutually exclusive? Just a question of emphasis? What are Christian values anyway? Are there other values in the circle which are Christian, and if there are, do they work against the values which encourage pro-social behaviour? I can see some conflict with tradition/conformity being seen as typically religious values, but which might limit a vision to see beyond ourselves and being willing to rock the boat (which the massive challenges ahead of us would seem to demand). But I get the feeling a lot of church leaders feel like this too!
The values of benevolence are also associated with pro-social behaviour and look pretty much like Christian values. Some groups involved in promoting this values-based approach to address global issues have not wanted to focus on benevolence values because the looking towards our neighbour sometimes closes the door to behaviour which benefits those far away if it harms or doesn’t benefit those close to home (eg paying more for Fair Trade). However, church is often one place where we do recognise that our neighbour includes those in far away places, especially churches which support organisations like TearFund and Christian Aid.
Below is a table of all the universal values, grouped in value types. Which ones are Christian values? Do we see universalism values in Jesus, in the Bible, in church? Is this what church should be like? Does it matter? I want to pursue these questions, and would love to know what you think?
Equality – Unity with nature – Wisdom – A world of beauty – Social justice – Broad-minded – Protecting the environment – A world at peace
Several secularists reacted angrily to the idea that Britain is a Christian country, declaring in a letter to the Telegraph that it ‘fosters division’ to say so. Many have responded in turn by saying that Britain’s historical and cultural heritage is Christian, so in this sense Britain is a Christian country (this heartfelt piece for example). Others felt the writers of the letter to be the divisive ones – such as the writer of the blog God and Politics, and the Bishop of Bradford (writing before Easter!) suggested that any opinion which differs from another could be labelled divisive, rendering the argument meaningless.
Others were uncomfortable with David Cameron’s speech because his version of Christianity seemed to be rather vague. A friend of mine responded with this article, suggesting that reducing Christianity to being nice misses the point, and that the ‘Kingdom of Heaven’ established by Jesus is rather more radical than the ‘Big Society’.
My cynical heart wondered which part of the electorate all this was designed to appeal to, but I try not to let that part take over. I have an even bigger problem with Cameron’s analysis of Christian values, as I’ve been thinking about this for a long time. My MA dissertation was about values, in particular those which are associated with pro-social behaviour. And I’ve been wondering if those values are the same as Christian values. And then I’ve come unstuck. What exactly are Christian values? My son attends a Church of England primary school, and in the entrance hall is a poster which says the school is based on Christian values – but goes no further.
David Cameron says Christian values are “responsibility, hard work, charity, compassion, humility and love” but I really can’t agree. Compassion, humility and love are clearly Christian (and part of other faiths too) though I’m not sure if they are all values. Not sure what he means by charity, especially as the King James Version of the Bible uses ‘charity’ where modern translations use ‘love’ so maybe this one is a repeat. Responsibility – maybe. Hard work, definitely not. Hard work is not a virtue. Christianity does not compel us to a lifetime of hard labour, Christianity at its heart is about God’s free gift of grace.
I need to go back to my essay about values, and really think which ones are Christian and which ones are not. Meanwhile, I’ll leave you with the link to another blog, which explains much better than me why believing that hard work is a Christian value is actually an attack on Christian values. And any suggestions as to what values are actually Christian ones all welcome.