Berkley Center

On April 3, 2008, former British prime minister Tony Blair called for faith to be a force for progress through shaping values to guide the modern world. This was his first speech since converting to Catholicism late last year, which was a personal step that had not gone unnoticed by the public sphere. His formal reception into the Catholic Church during a Mass in December 2007 was welcomed by some as an encouragement to the faith and criticized by others who examined his politics and policies. In any case, this has led to a revival of the question of religion’s role in politics in Britain, and in postmodern, secular democracies more generally.

Blair has given few reasons for the timing of his conversion, one of which is a fear of being labeled (in truly memorable British slang that possibly traces its roots to seventeenth century witch trials) a “nutter.” Others have cited practical, political issues such as his involvement with the negotiations for peace in the Catholic-Protestant conflict in Northern Ireland and the prime minister’s role in appointing heads of the Church of England. A palpable fear of linking personal religion and one’s public role as a politician is understandable given the presuppositions that can prejudice domestic and international publics and leaders, as Blair remarked upon in his April 2008 speech. However, it seems that Blair’s circumspection has resulted in a failure to fully please both the religious community and the secularists. The former criticizes his lack of moral courage to take a public stand instead of being a “closet Catholic.” The latter feels he has misled them into thinking religion meant little to him (unsurprising given his spokesperson’s famous remark made in 2003: "We don’t do religion.") and blames his religious inclinations for Britain’s alignment with the Bush administration that led the country into Iraq.

It is telling that while some critics choose to link Blair’s faith with his decision to commit British troops to the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, they avoid mention of the other policies that professing Catholic and member of Parliament Ann Widdecombe has brought up as going against the teachings of the Church. These include his support of partial-birth abortion and scientific research on cloned embryos. Others have questioned a more fundamental aspect of his professed faith—is it really spiritual or simply pragmatic, even opportunistic? Robert Colvile, a writer for Britain’s Telegraph, calls Blair’s faith a “political Christianity” that cares more about the good that religion (and Catholicism in particular) can do for the world rather than a personal relationship with God. Blair’s recent emphasis on the social merits of religion and his plans for the Faith Foundation to realize his vision for social action appear to support Collie’s view. Those far more skeptical have linked Blair’s conversion to boosting his chances for European Union (EU) presidency, since Roman Catholicism is the dominant religion amongst continental Europeans.

Whatever Blair’s reasons may be, the ongoing commentary on his religious convictions and political positions (and perhaps, ambitions) has demonstrated that professing a religion while playing an active role in English politics is akin to walking a tightrope. The extent to which a leader’s personal faith affects his or her public role varies, depending on the strength of personal devotion, especially in light of the influence of factors such as upbringing and educational experience in shaping one’s perspective. Blair’s claim that he would not have done anything very differently had he been a fully communicant member of the Catholic Church while occupying No.10 Downing Street is interesting. It shows how the uneven criticism of his decisions as prime minister means we—the public—need to be aware of personal and social biases when supporting or criticizing any public figure. His public emphasis on the social value of religion need not detract from his personal piety, and it can be viewed as an alternative to the very public intertwining of religion and electoral politics in the United States. (That said, if one takes the far more skeptical stance, with the different electorate in America, a “political Christianity” would inevitably take a different form!)