| ||
|---|---|---|
Secretary of State for Education and Science Leader of the Opposition Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Policies Appointments Articles by ministry and term: 1979–1983 1983–1987 1987–1990 Post-premiership Publications | ||
 | ||
"Sermon on the Mound" is the name given by theScottish press to an address made by British prime ministerMargaret Thatcher to theGeneral Assembly of the Church of Scotland on Saturday, 21 May 1988.[1] This speech, which laid out the relationship between her religious and political thinking, proved highly controversial.
.JPG)
Thatcher has been described by historianEliza Filby as Britain's most religious prime minister sinceWilliam Ewart Gladstone.[2] She was raised as aMethodist and had preached as such in herOxford years, but later she became a member of theChurch of England. She understood her political convictions in terms of her faith. However, as prime minister, she repeatedly found herself in conflict with the churches; she was reportedly "livid" whenthe Archbishop of Canterbury was critical of theFalklands War,[3] and she saw the Church of England'sFaith in the City report, with its theological criticism of her social policies, as an illegitimate intrusion of the church into the political sphere.[4]
In Scotland, Thatcher was particularly unpopular, and in the1987 general election, theConservatives lost more than half of their seats north of the border. In May 1988, Thatcher chose Scotland as the setting for a televised speech before theChurch of Scotland'sGeneral Assembly, which may have been co-authored by her chief policy advisor,Brian Griffiths,[5] and which was intended in part as a response toFaith in the City.[6]She was the first prime minister ever to address the body directly.[a]
The assembly had convened for its first session of the year at 10 a.m. but paused its business to allow the timing of the Prime Minister's address to coincide with the television schedule.[b] She appeared in a Tory-blue suit and hat. Even before she spoke, some in the church objected to her being given this platform because of the damage done to Scottish communities by the closure of coal mines and shipyards. After welcoming her to the assembly, theModerator,James Whyte, professor ofpractical theology atSt Andrews, asked, following the formal procedure, if it was the will of the assembly that the Prime Minister be permitted to speak. She had to wait while six parish ministers came forward to register their dissent.[9][c]
The name "Sermon on the Mound" is aplay on Jesus'sSermon on the Mount and the artificial hill inEdinburgh calledthe Mound, on which the church'sAssembly Hall stands. It reflects thesermon-like tone of her address, which is normally discouraged in debates in the assembly.[6] It has also been seen in the context that Thatcher was preaching to a church and nation that had mostly rejected her ideology.[10]
The Margaret Thatcher Foundation, which reproduces the full text of the speech on its website, characterises the nickname "Sermon on the Mound" as tasteless.[d]In an interview withScotland on Sunday in October 1988, Thatcher herself said, "it was not a sermon on the mount, it was Scotland asking me fully and frankly to give my beliefs, doing me the supreme courtesy and honour of asking me and listening with great attention."[11]
In the address, Thatcher offered atheological justification for her ideas oncapitalism and themarket economy.[12]
One key idea in Thatcher's political thinking wasindividualism, notably summed up in her 1987 statement that "there is no such thing as society".[13] This aligns with the theme of individual personalsalvation in the evangelicalWesleyan tradition in which she was raised.[6] A main theme of the speech is, therefore, the individual, both in the context ofspirituality and ofeconomic agency. Citing a view that "Christianity is about spiritualredemption, notsocial reform", she asserted that, while it would be wrong to see these as opposites, Christians should emphasisepersonal responsibility.[1] Quoting from the hymn "I Vow to Thee, My Country" (which had never been part of the Scottish tradition of worship[e]), she said: "It goes on to speak of 'another country I heard of long ago' whose King can't be seen and whose armies can't be counted, but 'soul by soul and silently her shining bounds increase'. Not group by group, or party by party, or even church by church—but soul by soul—and each one counts."[15]
Choice played a significant part inThatcherite reforms, and she claimed it as aChristian value by linking it with the idea that Christ chose to lay down his life and that all individuals have the God-given right to choose betweengood and evil. Thustheological ideas of free will flowed together in her thinking withfree-market ideas ofconsumer choice.[16]
The speech contains an ambivalence towards democracy. It points out that "nowhere in the Bible is the word democracy mentioned" and, ideally, when Christians meet, the purpose should not be "to ascertain what is the mind of the majority but what is the mind of theHoly Spirit – something which may be quite different".[1] Nevertheless, she professes to be an enthusiast for democracy because, more than any other system, it safeguards the value of the individual and restrains the abuse of power, "and thatis a Christian concept."[1] Thus democracy is linked in her thinking to individualism rather than to community.[6]
A central pillar of Thatcherite economics was the role ofprivate enterprise in producing wealth. In the speech to the assembly, she linked this to biblical commands: "We are told we must work and use our talents to create wealth. 'If a man will not work he shall not eat' wroteSt. Paul to the Thessalonians. Indeed, abundance rather than poverty has a legitimacy which derives from the very nature ofCreation."[16] However, she did not mention theGood Samaritan; her remark that the Samaritan could not have helped if he had not been rich and that theparable teaches us first to create wealth and then help the poor, has sometimes been cited in the context of this speech,[17] but was made elsewhere.[f] It has been suggested that by 1988 the Samaritan interpretation had become "analbatross" which she avoided repeating.[20]
When Thatcher finished speaking, the Moderator, James Whyte, formally presented her with church reports onhomelessness, poverty andsocial security, which was interpreted in the press as a polite rebuke.[21] One of these, entitledJust Sharing: a Christian Approach to the Distribution of Wealth, Income and Benefits, advocated heavy taxation on the rich and a revivedBeveridge Report for the poor.[22] The house broke into laughter and applause as Whyte read the titles of the reports.[21] This gesture led Conservative MPNicholas Fairbairn to declare Whyte "Satanic".[23]
Thatcher's speech was highly controversial. One clergyman present described it as "a disgraceful travesty of thegospel".[24] The following day, the professor of practical theology at Edinburgh University,Duncan B. Forrester, objected onRadio Forth that the church had never countenanced the idea of an "individualist's paradise".[25] South of the border, the Church of England's Board of Social Responsibility issued a highly criticalopen letter.[22] On the Catholic side, CardinalBasil Hume remarked sardonically: "I already have to deal with one leader who thinks they're infallible."[22]
Criticism was not restricted to voices within the churches. Much resentment was caused by the message "If a man will not work, he shall not eat" from a prime minister who had presided over an unprecedented rise in unemployment.[11] Holding this speech before the Scottish church at a time when the Conservative party had just lost seats in Scotland and Thatcher's approval ratings north of the border were particularly low has been described as "political suicide".[14] One journalist recalls: "It's said that this speech marked the beginning of the end for Conservative rule in Scotland, with many voices raised in opposition to what they regarded as an alien creed that abused classic Christian ideas in an effort to fashion a political manifesto."[21] Thatcher's foreign policy advisorCharles Powell later admitted: "It was an unmitigated disaster and she should never have done it."[12]
However, Thatcher's supporters believed that if the church invited her to speak, it should have expected her to talk about the religious aspects of her worldview.[21] The Margaret Thatcher Foundation rates the address as having key importance as a statement of Thatcher's views on "civil liberties, education, taxation,family,race, immigration, nationality, religion &morality,social security, and welfare".[1] Thatcher herself noted, "We have had more requests for copies of that speech from all over the world than any other."[11]
In 1989, the novelistJonathan Raban made a detailed analysis of the address using the methodology ofliterary criticism, in particular studying how the vocabulary resonates with the language of English Methodism and of ScottishPresbyterianism, as well as its place in Thatcher's own politicalrhetoric. He discusses the allusions toAbraham Lincoln, the "Battle Hymn of the Republic" andGilbert and Sullivan. He highlights the significance of the idiosyncratic "Judaic-Christian" (as opposed toJudeo-Christian) and the impliedslighting of Islam. Raban rates the speech as a strong statement of Thatcher's ideas:"No attack on its eccentric theology, its flawed logic, its mercilessly scant language can rob Mrs Thatcher's speech of the remarkable consistency of its vision. It is stamped throughout with her peculiar integrity, her plainspun way with big ideas, her scornful and impatient certitude."[25] However, he concludes that the language of the address "has the unpleasant ring of a new and pertly unctuous thieves' slang".[26]
The minutes contain no account of the content of the speech itself.The General Assembly suspended their sitting at 10.50 a.m. until 11.10 a.m.
On resuming, The Right Hon. Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of Her Majesty's Government, being present, was invited to address the General Assembly.
The Rev. P. Reamonn entered his dissent to which the Rev. A. K. Sorensen, the Rev. S. D. McQuarrie, the Rev. J. Ainslie, the Rev. R. H. Drummond, and the Rev. C. M. Anderson adhered. The following reasons for dissent were adduced: --
- that it would have been more appropriate for the invitation to have been at the time of presentation of the Report of the Committee on Church and Nation when there would also have been more opportunity for a fuller response;
- that the Prime Minister had come to the Assembly to use it for her own political purposes, and to preach a gospel other than the Christian Gospel;
- that the Prime Minister represented a Government which has caused great suffering and deep distress for many people;
- that the action of the Moderator had presented the Assembly with afait accompli.
The Moderator then welcomed the Prime Minister, invited her to address the General Assembly, and thereafter thanked her and presented her with a memento of her visit.[8]
.jpg)
