What does it mean to say that Britain is or is not a Christian nation?

Can a nation be saved? Can a nation be changed? Can a nation be turned back to God?

The Times splashed their frontpage this week with a survey of Church of England clergy which found – apparently, and we’ll get to the need for caveats – that a majority do not think that Britain is any longer a Christian country.

Asked whether “Britain can or cannot be described as a Christian country”, a quarter replied: “Yes, Britain can be described as a Christian country today”, with the majority, sixty-four per cent saying yes, but only historically, not currently. Just under ten per cent said “No”.

Of course the paper could have shifted its interpretation of those numbers to say that ninety per cent of clergy thought Britain is or has been a Christian country, but that would have made for a far less interesting headline.

Those caveats on the research: this was not a survey of all Church of England clergy, the paper contacted around a quarter of those listed, and a quarter of those responded. So we have the views of this sample, and we have no idea whether this is a representative sample of the whole group, because the selection was random and the response was self-selective. That creates the potential for all sorts of bias, you hear from those who are less busy, more opinionated, less concerned about what the paper might do with the results. It is also only a survey of Church of England clergy, so nothing about the views of those in Scotland or Wales, and the frequent misstep is also made that occurs so often, of treating the Church of England as though it is the church in England.

What the survey actually finds is that a certain set of Church of England clergy have views on whether Britain can be described as Christian which for the majority is a nuanced position and probably because this is such a difficult question to answer.  

So what does it mean to answer the question one way or the other? On one level I want to reject the question entirely, because people are Christians and not nations. I have the lyrics to a Matt Redman song ringing in my head: “Can a nation be changed, can a nation be saved, can a nation be turned back to God?” Aside from the power of rhetoric in the lyrics, I think most would understand that to be the people collectively rather than the nation as an institution, however, as I’ll set out below I think when answering the question there is a mixture of how Christianity relates to people, law, culture and institutions that affect how one answers the question.

With that in mind here are five ways in which I think the question is answered, meaning that any overall result is pretty much meaningless, regardless of the methodology used.

1.       If you live in Britain you have to be a Christian

The first option is that the Christian religion is the compulsory belief system of the nation and no other beliefs are tolerated. That is clearly not the case in the UK, and I doubt many responding to the survey would desire this to be the case. I firmly believe that we should seek a system of laws and government that enable the gospel to be preached as freely and widely as possible and for people to accept or reject that without recrimination. Also, a nation can’t make people Christian.

2.       The majority of the population are Christian

This is arguably the easiest way to answer the question, look at the census data and see that a majority of the population do not describe themselves as Christian and therefore the answer is yes, it was historically but no it is not today. That fails on two counts, firstly it approximates something for the whole based on a majority, and that is always dubious, whether it’s to say that Britain is a rich country, a left wing country, a white country, an educated country, or anything else. I know it’s done, but it doesn’t help those who are not Christian see the UK as somewhere that they can flourish.

Secondly it takes the responses to the census on face value, what I would argue that we have seen over the last few decades is the decline of nominal Christianity. The Talking Jesus research suggests that the number who are active in their Christian faith, reading the Bible, praying and attending church, remained fairly stable between 2015 and 2022. This is not to say that those who don’t do those things don’t have a faith in Jesus, just that for many of them it may well have been a legacy of growing up when being part of a society where Christianity was more entrenched was enough for them to consider themselves Christian.

3.       The establishment of the Church of England

That England has an established church with particular status and position institutionally makes this whole question far more complicated. In their discussion of the survey findings Times Radio introduced it with the words of the Archbishop of Canterbury at King Charles III’s coronation. Christianity is interlaced with the institutions of this nation in complex and sometimes contradictory ways. Bishops have seats in the House of Lords, the governance of the Church of England requires legislation in parliament to change some of its rules, and the King took an oath to uphold the protestant faith.

Historically it makes it easy to say – I would argue incorrectly – that Britain was a Christian nation. To use the frame of Charles Taylor, the institutions and culture of the country made it hard not to believe, everything was arranged around the functioning of the church and Christian beliefs. That has changed. While institutional arrangements still remain, it is no longer advantageous to hold Christian beliefs, in fact other cultural and social institutions now make it far easy to not hold religious beliefs, at least not with any fervour. Therefore in that regard the majority view is the most understandable, Britain was historically Christian but is no more.

4.       Our laws reflect Christian teaching

If we are looking at what it means for a nation to be Christian rather than its people, aside from compelling people to be part of a religious group one way to consider the relative importance of a belief system is whether or not those beliefs are reflected in the laws that govern society.

It is sometimes said that you can’t legislate morality. And you can’t compel people to be moral by laws, but you can legislate in line with a set of morals, in fact you always will, the question is what morals, and to what extent. I do not hear many people complaining that murder is against the law, that’s a moral position and I do not want to change that. However, I wouldn’t support a law that criminalised adultery, that’s a moral position but not one I think should be legislated for.

The law is not just about criminalising actions, it is also about setting norms for society that encourage people towards what is right and what is wrong. Therefore, laws that relate to the taxation of families have a moral dimension, child benefit support is moral, environmental protection is moral. This is a far bigger conversation – and one I’m utterly devoted to exploring - but how we take Christian teaching and translate that into policy that is for the good of all is a key task of public theology and Christian public engagement.

It therefore can be said that laws and policy which previously were structured around Christian teaching are now more unmoored from that anchor, not entirely, and probably far less than many imagine, but the anchor has been lifted and there is no firm foundation to take its place.

5.       There is widespread support for Christian values and teaching

The final way that people may answer the question is that within a society there is widespread support for Christian teaching and values. This doesn’t mean that most people are Christian, nor that the laws necessarily are in line with Christian teaching, but that there is respect and support for that teaching. This is obviously a weaker description of what it might mean for a nation to be Christian. It is also easiest to see how this would be a historic descriptor of Britain, where the norms and values of a society are concordant with Christian belief and makes it simpler to follow Christian teaching.

Here, like in the previous aspects one can see how this has shifted over the past century and there is less support for Christian teaching. In previous generations the criticism of Christianity was sometimes that it was too moralistic, now the criticism is that it’s immoral. This is particularly seen in the area of sexuality, where historic teaching which would have been accepted even by those who do not profess belief but is now rejected and even considered by some as harmful. It is not just sexuality though, one could also consider how those who are in the greatest need are supported, how it responds to those seeking sanctuary in our country and how justice, mercy and righteousness are encouraged throughout society.

Yes, but. No, but.

I want to suggest that those responding to this survey would have looked at this question and instinctively responded either “yes, but”, or “no, but”. There are reasons why people might on balance want to describe the nation as Christian, but requiring nuance and explanation, and also those – including myself – who would say no, but also want to explain what is meant by that response.

I want to see a society where more people follow Jesus. And I want to see a society where Christian teaching influences the law and cultural norms and encourages justice, mercy and righteousness. I don’t think any of that makes a nation Christian, and I think the discussion can distract from that task, it can present simplistic solutions or fear of living on the margins.

One final point, the margins are not a place to be afraid of. Historically that’s where the gospel has spread most abundantly, where followers of Jesus have courageously influenced society. If it takes a nation to be ‘less Christian’ to see that happen, then that’s perhaps something we should embrace. We certainly shouldn’t shift the beliefs of the church in a quest for relevance.