The Christian Left. Anthony A. J. Williams

Maurice and Ludlow.⁶ Kingsley also condemned a hypocritical Christianity that sought to quash complaints about such an exploitative system, arguing: ‘We have used the Bible as if it were a special constable’s handbook – an opium-dose for keeping beasts of burden patient while they were being overloaded – a mere book to keep the poor in order.’⁷ The Bible, Kingsley pointed out, speaks far more of the rights of workers and the duties of those who own property than contemporary preaching reflected.

After the initial leaflet the three men set up a journal, Politics for the People, ‘a rag-bag fusion of radical politics, liberal churchmanship and social conservatism’, which tended to lack concrete proposals and attracted criticism from the Chartists and other radical movements as much as it did from the conservative elements within the Church of England.⁸ This was followed by a series of Tracts on Christian Socialism, a name approved by Maurice, who had quickly emerged as the dominant figure within the group: ‘Christian Socialism [is] the only title which will define our object, and will commit us at once to the conflict we must engage in sooner or later with the unsocial Christians and the unchristian Socialists.’⁹ The fact that Maurice predicted such a conflict indicates that he saw himself or his colleagues as having to battle with secular socialists no less than with Christians who opposed socialism; by contrast, Christian Socialists in Britain, from the late nineteenth century onwards, would often work within, or at least alongside, the main current of left-wing and labour politics, even while they emphasised the unique religious reasoning for their socialism.

      Maurice contributed the first Tract, in which his commitment to socialism was as ambiguous as that of Kingsley. In the opening paragraphs he declared that ‘I seriously believe that Christianity is the only foundation of Socialism, and that a true Socialism is the necessary result of a sound Christianity’; yet, in what followed, he remained vague on what that socialism actually entailed.¹⁰ Robert Owen and Charles Fourier were advanced as examples of socialism, yet Maurice argued that the co-operative schemes of these men failed because they erred in trying to build a new form of society. This, according to Maurice, was a mistaken endeavour, for a co-operative society already existed – all that was required was for the co-operative nature of society to be recognised.¹¹ This somewhat bewildering argument perhaps goes some way towards explaining Maurice’s cautious approach, for radical action was unnecessary and potentially harmful, insofar as attempts to build new co-operative structures risked damaging the already-existing co-operative nature of society, which needed only to be brought into view. Instinctively conservative, Maurice remained a supporter of monarchy and social order, opposed to trade unions and attempts to undertake significant structural changes to politics or the economy.¹²

Maurice’s view of society as co-operative was derived from his ecclesiology – his theology of the church. For historian and theologian Jeremy Morris, the politics of Maurice ‘was never anything other than a direct application of his ecclesiological convictions […] his Christian Socialism was simply another presentation of his thinking on the church’.¹³ The church, argued Maurice, declared the ‘unity of God’, which was the basis for ‘all unity among men’. It was the church, he wrote, which represented ‘Universal fellowship’ and unity ‘for all kindreds and races’, as well as being ‘the divine means of declaring to all men their relationship to God; and of transmitting its blessings to succeeding generations’.¹⁴ It was this emphasis that explains Maurice’s reluctance to support reform movements, trade unions, political parties, or even the co-operative ventures to which he did, at length, give his approval: the church was already, as Morris terms it, ‘a universal, spiritual society for all human beings’, and none other was needed.¹⁵ The task at hand, thought Maurice, was to draw attention to the church as the basis for a co-operative society, not to create a new basis. In Maurice’s view, society was made up of three spheres: church, nation and family. Unlike other theories of this type – for example, the sphere sovereignty of Abraham Kuyper – which posited autonomous, non-overlapping spheres, Maurice’s spheres were in hierarchical relationship to one another: church at the top, then nation, and then family. Furthermore, Maurice at times seems to suggest that the church encompassed all – a complete overlap between universal church and universal society.¹⁶ As such, the church was the basis for all societal co-operation.

      Though significant, Maurice’s ecclesiological arguments were not as durable as his theology of the incarnation, which would be a key emphasis in the work of the next generation of, especially high-church Anglican, Christian Socialists.¹⁷ Maurice ‘sees the union between Godhead and humanity as the central message of Christian Scripture’, for it ‘reveals the unity of God with humanity’.¹⁸ This is not an exclusive unity, but underlines the presence of Christ in all human lives – hence, the universality of the church and its message of unity and co-operation. It demonstrates that all human beings are linked together in a common brotherhood, as a common family, and therefore that a society based on economic competition and rivalry is unnatural and inhumane.¹⁹ In place of such a competitive society, Maurice called for a co-operative society based on ‘fellowship’ or ‘communion’.²⁰ Nowhere are these ideas represented more clearly than in the Eucharist, which represented for Maurice the incarnate Christ as well as the communion – the fellowship – of all people, both with each other and with God.²¹ Thus incarnational theology was linked to the core Christian Socialist concept of brotherhood, as well as to co-operation.

Maurician co-operation, though based on the fraternal fellowship of all people, was not egalitarian. Indeed, it is noticeable that Maurice employed the phrase ‘Liberty, Fraternity, Unity’ in place of the more familiar conceptual trio, with unity replacing equality.²² Nevertheless, Maurice wanted all to take their place in a society based on the fraternal, co-operative values of God’s kingdom. For Maurice – and for Kingsley – socialism was the expression of a kingdom of God, which already existed if men would but realise it. This, however, meant that socialism must be kept from party politics, unions, strikes and revolutions, all of which mitigated against this reality.²³ ‘Every successful strike tends to give the workmen a very undue and dangerous sense of their own power, and a very alarming contempt for their employer,’ Maurice declared, while unsuccessful strikes led, he claimed, to even more radicalism.²⁴ ‘Organizations, political parties, trade unions, strikes – these implied a denial of “the Divine Order”,’ explains John Cort. ‘It was all rather pathetic. The message, in effect, was: “Politics are not for the people – at least not yet”.’²⁵

      Cort gives rather a more charitable assessment of Ludlow, whom he regards as the true founder of British Christian Socialism. Ludlow had spent time in France, was influenced by ethical socialists such as Henri Saint-Simon (see Chapter 3) and Charles Fourier, and was supportive of the co-operative initiatives he observed in Paris. He went far further than Maurice or Kingsley in arguing for state ownership and worker management of key industries.²⁶ Maurice certainly emphasised the significance of co-operation. In his Christian Socialist Tract he declared that the ‘principle of co-operation’ is the core principle of socialism and that all who prefer it to competition are socialists; co-operation would allow the working class to assert their share of ownership in society, a share denied to them by the capitalist system.²⁷ Maurice, however, needed his arm twisting before he would commit to putting his principle into practice – perhaps he feared attempts to create rather than simply recognise co-operation – and it was Ludlow who was the driving force behind the associations for tailors, shoemakers, builders, bakers, needlewomen, and other professions, all of which were affiliated to a new Society for the Promotion of Workingmen’s Associations, which was responsible for providing guidance and raising funds where necessary.²⁸ Yet Maurice’s unwillingness to countenance union activity and strikes prevented this developing co-operative movement from forming links with the trade unions; the movement faltered and finally failed in 1855, the progress of Christian Socialism itself coming to a simultaneous halt. Its supporters reflected that things might have been different had Ludlow rather than Maurice been the leading figure.²⁹

Maurice’s achievements should not be denigrated – he founded the Working