Margaret Thatcher's Christian Faith

MARGARET THATCHERS CHRISTIAN FAITH
A Case Study in Political Theology

Graeme Smith
ABSTRACT
Throughout the 1980s Margaret Thatcher dominated British and global
politics. At the same time she maintained an active Christian faith, which
she understood as shaping and informing her political choices and policies.
In this article I argue that we can construct from Thatchers key speeches,
her memoirs, and her book on public policy a cultural theo-political identity which guided her political decisions. Thatchers identity was as an
Anglo-Saxon Nonconformist. This consisted of her belief in values such as
thrift and hard work, care for the family and local neighbor, and charitable generosity; her belief in the renewal of the national British Christian
spirit; and her notion of morality as the opportunity for free choice. Without
a recognition of the centrality of her theo-political identity, it is difficult to
understand the values and beliefs which were central to her political life.
The methodological issues raised by the construction of this theo-political
identity are examined in this article. The aim of the proposed methodology
is to develop theological insights into a political phenomenon like Thatcher
rather than make policy judgments or recommendations.
KEY WORDS: Margaret Thatcher, political theology, social theology, Conservative Party, Christianity and politics, cultural identity
1988, NINE YEARS INTO HER REIGN AS BRITISH PRIME MINISTER, Margaret
Thatcher resolved to read the Old Testament from cover to cover. Each
day she would report on her progress to the staff in her private office.
Asked afterwards about her impressions, she said she had found the
books surprisingly gory. In 1983 Hugo Young, a British journalist who
worked for the left-leaning Guardian newspaper, asked Thatcher what
she was reading. Thatcher had not been given any notice of the question.
She replied, Right now Im re-reading The Ten Commandments, by the
Archbishop of York. She went on to say, Im always trying to read a
fundamental book. . . . I read quite a lot of theological work (Young 1993,
420, 426). Her memoirs and her final book, Statecraft, bear witness to
this interest in theology. In the first volume of her memoirs, The Downing
Street Years, when discussing her governments foreign policy, especially
in relation to Israel, Thatcher wrote, I believe in what are often referred
IN
JRE 35.2:233257.
C 2007 Journal of Religious Ethics, Inc.
234
Journal of Religious Ethics
to as Judaeo-Christian values: indeed my whole political philosophy is

based on them (Thatcher 1993, 509). In the second volume, The Path to
Power, she goes further: Although I have always resisted the argument
that a Christian has to be a Conservative, I have never lost my conviction that there is a deep and providential harmony between the kind of
political economy I favour and the insights of Christianity (Thatcher
1995, 55455). Reading Thatchers volumes and speeches, one senses
that resistance is weak. Certainly she believed that no other ideology
or party could claim a closer connection with the Christian faith. In her
Iain Macleod Lecture of July 1977, she said,
The Tories began as a Church party, concerned with the Church and state,
and in that order, before our concern extended to the economy, and many
other fields which politics now touches. Religion gives us not only valuesa
scheme of things in which economic, social, penal policy have their place
but also our historical roots [Thatcher 1977a, 61].
It would be possible to go on at some length detailing the occasions when

Thatcher mentions Christianity, the Bible, or her own personal faith.
However, generating such a list is not the purpose of this essay. Rather,
the question I want to examine is: what significance should we afford to
these and other snippets of theological comment?
1. The Importance of Christianity for Thatcher

One answer to this question is to say that they are no more than a
form of popular piety with little relevance to Thatchers political life.
Thatchers theology is predominantly a legacy from her childhood, a
remnant of her fathers influence, but with no importance beyond being a further illustration of her quirky and eccentric personality. This
is the overall tone employed by biographers such as Hugo Young and
John Campbell. Campbell examines Thatchers faith in the most detail,
especially the Christianity of her childhood. He discusses the domestic
and theological culture of the Roberts household.1 What he describes is
a place of devout and evangelical Methodism. The familys social life, for
which there was not a lot of time because of the demands of the shop,
was limited to the Grantham environs and dominated by religious activities (Campbell 2001, 1718). Alf Roberts was a shopkeeper, local politician, and lay preacher. Campbells interesting point is that there was one
set of principles and ideas which underpinned all these activities; as he
says, there was no distinction between commercial, political and religious values (Campbell 2001, 1516). Roberts was a man for whom the
1
Thatchers maiden name was Roberts. Her influential father was Alf Roberts.
Margaret Thatchers Christian Faith
235
theological, financial, and political were intimately fused. Campbell

might have built on this analysis, arguing that what was apparent in
Thatchers childhood is also apparent in her adult political life. The
same fusion of values can be seen to be at work. However, this is not
a path Campbell pursues, instead limiting his comments to her childhood. This approach, as we shall see, fails to do justice to the importance
of Thatchers Christianity for her adult political life.
A second answer would be to argue that Thatchers Christianity
shaped her adult life and informed her political choices and judgments.
Such an answer builds on the difficulties experienced by political scientists as they seek to understand Thatchers political philosophy. An illustration of this problem comes from the work of Peter Riddell. Riddell
is clear that Thatcherism is not a theoretical system for which Margaret
Thatcher should claim intellectual property rights. Bluntly, and without
fear of overgenerosity, he wrote that Mrs. Thatcher is not a great political thinker or theorist (Riddell 1991, 2). Riddell argues that Thatcher
was more instinctive than ideologicalthat she was guided by the pragmatic application of lessons learned from personal experience. Central
to this personal experience was her childhood in Grantham. Quoting
from his own previous work, Riddell states, Thatcherism is essentially
an instinct, a series of moral values and an approach to leadership
rather than an ideology. It is an expression of Mrs. Thatchers upbringing in Grantham, her background of hard work and family responsibility, ambition and postponed satisfaction, duty and patriotism (Riddell
1991, 23). Riddell goes on to provide substance to what he meant by
childhood beliefs by discussing Victorian values. This he did without
mentioning Christianity. For Riddell, the values espoused by Thatcher
are the values of the English suburban and provincial middle-class and
aspiring skilled working-class (Riddell 1991, 3). They contrast with the
values of the establishment elite, in which are included the leadership
of the universities, the Church of England, the Foreign Office, and the
professions. For Riddell, Thatcher had been in equal parts patronized
and disliked by the liberal intellectual establishment. Riddell is sympathetic to Kingsley Amiss critique, to which he refers, that this was no
more than snobbery (Riddell 1991, 4).
Riddells argument is important because it takes us to the point of recognizing the way in which for Thatcher, and no doubt others, Thatcherism
was an instinct, a set of norms, and a culture from which to draw, rather
than a set of coherent beliefs or a developed political ideology. The limitation of Riddells work is that he does not offer content to the culture. What
were the values which gave the culture its identity and substance, which
in effect enabled the culture to function politically? Riddells answer of
Victorian values begs more questions than it answers because so little time and space is given to analyzing what the phrase might mean.
236
Therefore, we are left with the question: what was the content and form
of the instinctive culture which shaped Thatcher and Thatcherism? It is
this question that I seek to address in this essay.
The central argument is that Margaret Thatcher had an adult Christian faith which shaped and guided her political policies and choices. The
main aim of this article is to outline the form and content of her Christianity and describe how it impacted her politics. What I shall identify
is a type of cultural theo-political identity which governed Thatchers
reaction to the policy proposals put before her. Her political theology will
be categorized as an Anglo-Saxon Nonconformity. The evidence for this
nomenclature, the style and nature of her theological system, will be
presented in the main section of the article. What will be demonstrated
is that any account of Thatchers political ideas and policies is partial if
it fails to take full account of her Christianity. An essential part of the
biography and political science of Thatcherand by close association,
Thatcherismis theological analysis. So far, political scientists have all
but ignored Thatchers Christianity. A subject for another article is why
this is the case given the overwhelming evidence, from Thatchers own
lips, of the importance of Christianity to her politics.
2. Analyzing Thatcher as a Theologian

Before we proceed to describe Thatchers theo-political cultural identity, it is necessary to say something about the methodological issues
raised by the task of constructing and analyzing such a political theology. There are three parts to my methodological discussion. The first
outlines in practice what one actually has to do to construct a theology which one can attribute to Thatcher given that she herself wrote no
formal theology. The second part considers the place of my constructed
Thatcher theology in debates about methodology in political theology.
The third discusses the question of the value of the approach adopted
here in relation to alternate political theologies, in particular, examining
the question of what critical judgments can be made about Thatchers
theology.
Margaret Thatcher was a politician. She was not a theologian. This
obvious point needs to be made because of the methodological issue
it raises. Thatcher wrote no great theological tomes for us to analyze.
There is no theological magnus opus or systematics to pour over, dissect,
and interpret. Instead, the first stage in analyzing Thatchers theology
is actually to construct it. What we have from Thatcher are a number of important speeches, two volumes of memoirs, a book advising
on future political policy (Statecraft), and a vast array of policy statements. Within these speeches, proposals, and memoirs are comments,
sentences, and short paragraphs in which Thatcher refers to her beliefs
237
and faith. We have snippets of theology interspersed among political

ideas, policies, rhetoric, and straightforward point-scoring. Furthermore,
Thatchers main purpose, certainly in the speeches she gave but also in
her memoirs and Statecraft, was not to present a theological exposition.
The speeches were intended to win new friends, reassure allies, present
policies, defend decisions made, challenge people, and often, especially
at the annual party conferences, rouse the faithful.2 The memoirs are
her retelling of life in government and the personal journey, which led
to political office. Inevitably the memoirs are often a defensive explanation and justification for the decisions her governments made. This is
not especially surprising as they were Thatchers chance to shape her
legacy. What this all means for the theologian is that the first step in
the analysis is to bring together the diverse, briefly stated, scattered
theological remarks, and see if they can be constructed into a coherent
set of ideas. Thatcher the politician has to be turned into Thatcher the
theologian. Only then can we engage in a theological analysis of her
work and its impact on her policies. Such a methodological move occurs prior to the presentation of any findings. One consequence of this
methodology is that I am not claiming Thatcher was conscious of the
theological identity I shall attribute to her. Thatcher believed she was a
Christian and that her politics and Christianity were intimately related;
however, this is not the same as recognizing the Nonconformist AngloSaxon identity I shall attribute to her. It is entirely possible and likely
that the identity functioned unconsciously by shaping her political ideas
in ways which emerge indirectly. This does not diminish their importance; it is more of a comment on Thatchers own reflective and analytical
priorities.
The consequence of this practical task of theological construction is
that I will define a cultural theo-political identity for Thatcher which
informs her political judgments. An important question concerns how
this construct might be understood theologically. The guide here is the
work of George Lindbeck, who in his study of postliberal theology, argues
that religious belief can be understood as a cultural-linguistic system.
Lindbeck writes, A religion can be viewed as a kind of cultural and/or
linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and
thought (Lindbeck 1984, 33). As Lindbeck notes, the cultural-linguistic
approach diminishes the place of voluntarist or cognitive assent to propositional truth claims; these follow induction into the religious system. It
2 There is a question of how much of Thatchers speeches was her own work. Like all
modern politicians she had the help of speechwriters. This is acknowledged by Thatcher
herself and by Harris, the editor of the volume of key speeches we are using. However, they
also state that Thatcher was always intimately involved in the drafting of speeches and
even if the words were not her own, the ideas were (Harris 1997, xivxviii). Harris quotes
from the relevant sections of Thatchers memoirs.
238
also displaces the notion of personal religious experience seeking theological expression; for an experience to be religious, a religious language
with which to have the experience is required (Lindbeck 1984, 34).
Lindbeck did not intend his analysis to be employed in the manner
I am using it here. However, the advantage of Lindbecks study for an
analysis of Thatcher is apparent; she does not assert or investigate theological propositional truth claims, nor does she reflect on prior numinous
experience. Thatchers beliefs can be treated as a cultural-linguistic
framework to be analyzed and described by the theologian.3 In this way,
the integrity of the belief system, its religious and political coherence, is
the object of analysis and discussion.
Lindbeck makes the interesting point that a post-liberal approach
is most appreciated in an interdisciplinary context (such as the
universityalthough he does not mention this particular context) because there is more interest among nontheologians about how a religion
works than about its credibility (Lindbeck 1984, 130). Likewise, a theological reading of an individual like Thatcher, such as is being proposed
here, may well be more revealing for those who have previously sought
to understand her in a purely, or predominantly, secular manner. This
is partly because this reading shows how a religion functions for a political leader rather than making claims about the truth of the religious
system. It is also because I am offering theology as a critical tool for analyzing a political phenomenon like Thatcher, instead of using other tools
such as economic theory, political science, or sociology. My question is:
what unique analysis might come from the theologian who employs only
theological tools to analyze a political phenomenon?
To clarify this methodological approach in more detail, it is helpful
to place it in the context of other political theology methodologies. One
can begin by asking the question: on what grounds is a political ideology or movement critiqued by theologians? Is a political phenomenon to
be critiqued because it lacks theological coherence? Such incoherence is
rarely the case in political theology, and was not to my knowledge ever
the case with regard to Thatcher and Thatcherism. If the critique is not
theological, then is it political or social? It may perhaps assess the social or economic consequences of a particular political policy and, as a
result of social scientific analysis of these outcomes, make a judgment
about the values or principles which must have led to the policy consequences. This is far more likely. It was a common approach adopted by
theologians criticizing Thatcher. It reached its zenith in the Church of
3 Such a method is distinct from reading theology out of context as this analyzes the
social, political, cultural, and economic situation from which theological ideas or systems
emerge; it interrogates the background of the theological system rather than the theology
itself. Tim Gorringes study of Karl Barth is an example of this type of contextual analysis,
as is the series of which his study is a part (Gorringe 1999).
239
Englands Faith in the City report when the authors of the report argued
that no theology was required to motivate Christians to respond to the
plight of the poorest in Britains inner-city areas (ACCUPA 1985, 48).
Rather, what was required was a recognition that the Thatcher governments policies had led to a situation in which the social and economic
conditions of the poorest were worse and so the values underpinning
those policies contradicted Christian norms. Such political theology is
more political than theological; in fact, it is difficult to discern what role
theology has in this political theology. This is Raymond Plants criticism
of much political theology. Plant argues that a book like John Rawlss A
Theory of Justice has a complexity and power which cannot be matched
by any contemporary social and political theology. He went on,
It is not clear what the Church is adding, for example, to a theory of redistributive justice of its own, and one is left with the despair of feeling
that one is looking for the odd bit of theological backing for ones political
preferences which are held on quite other grounds [Plant 1985, 329].
Plants use of Rawls is merely illustrative of the bigger problem he

is describing. The theology in political theology is there to motivate and
bolster a social or political critique. The theology itself does not add anything to the analytical activity. Plants criticism is amply exemplified by
theological engagements with Thatcher. There are those who are highly
critical of Thatcher, and find theological texts to support their criticism.
Likewise, there are those who find much to praise in Thatcher and the
theology to underpin their support. The problem here is methodological. What contribution can a theologian make to the study of a political
phenomenon which is made solely as a theologian and not as a theologian who is motivated by theology to adopt a particular political or social analysis? This is not to say that a theologian or, more important, a
Church, cannot make an ethical judgment about a political phenomenon
motivated by theological factors. They can. David Jenkins, in his 1984
enthronement sermon as Bishop of Durham, was critical of the workings
of the market and of the economic idea of trickle-down to address the
problem of poverty (Jenkins 1988, 1821). There are many illustrations
of theologians being political for theological reasons. However, such judgments are political and would be challenged, as they were in Jenkinss
case, by those on the other side of the political divide. The question rather
is whether the theologian can add to our knowledge and understanding
of a political phenomenon without making a social or political judgment.
What is proposed here is a political theology methodology which constructs Thatchers theo-political cultural identity and thereby adds to our
understanding of this political phenomenon in a way so far not achieved
by nontheological commentators.
Such an analysis raises another question. If we are to impose this selflimiting ordinance of not making a social or political judgment about the
240
consequences of Thatchers policies, then how can we critique her? In

one sense the answer to this is simple. A theologian may make a political, social, or economic judgment drawing on the best expertise available in these fields. Nothing I am arguing prevents that; what I am
saying is that this is a social, political, or economic judgment and not
theological.
A theologian may also make a theological judgment about the theopolitical identity that has been constructed. Lindbecks discussion of
performative criteria enables an assessment of a theological system,
especially its intelligibility, in a way that is helpful for this type of
judgment. Such an analysis would not decide whether the theo-political
identity was true because, as Lindbeck acknowledges, performative criteria do not overcome the problem of the end of foundationalism (Lindbeck 1984, 12834). However, once an identity has been constructed, it
would be possible to ask whether all that was said or done was consistent
with the identity.
A further form of analysis is possible if we construct alternate theopolitical identities to analyze political movements. For example, as the
U.K. Prime Minister, Tony Blair could be categorized as an example of
a High Tory Anglican based on his consensual, establishment-oriented
and imperialist approach.4 No doubt something similar could be done
for U.S. figures such as Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. The value
of these alternate identities is that they provide a contrast by which
judgments can be made about the initial identity. They are instruments
by which the choices that exist theologically in the public arena can
be clarified. As a mode of analysis this would not lead to a positing of
the right or wrong theo-political identity, nor the good or bad, although
the implications of different identities could be discussed. Rather, the
value of the analysis would be to help explain the political theological
identity, which shapes the public choices and actions of movements and
their leaders. For what we are seeking to do is deepen our understanding
of a political phenomenon like Thatcher as theologians utilizing theology
as a critical tool. This is an analytical project. The value of this political
theology methodology is dependent to a large extent on the results of the
work. It is to these that I now turn.
3. Margaret Thatchers Theological Identity

What is striking for a theologian reading the speeches and memoirs
of Margaret Thatcher is the prominence given to Christian belief, the
4 Clearly, this category requires a lot of unpacking, not least the seeming contrast between Blairs imperialism and elitism and his desire for big tent politics, at least in his
early days.
241
language of morality, and the idea of spiritual regeneration. Other

themes closely associated with Thatcher are also apparent, if not more
prominent, such as anticollectivism and free enterprise, and many
speeches as well as large parts of her memoirs contain no reference to
theological ideas. However, frequently Thatcher argues that what underpins her political philosophy are moral beliefs or her Christian faith.
An early address as party leader to the Conservative Party Conference
in 1975 demonstrates how economics, politics, and morality were fundamentally interconnected. She said,
Mr. President, serious as the economic challenge is, the political and moral
challenge is just as grave and perhaps even more so, because economic
problems never start with economics. They have much deeper roots in human nature and roots in politics, and they do not finish at economics either
[Thatcher 1975b, 31].
To be able to analyze Thatchers theology, I will separate out the important components of her values and beliefs. This is, however, an analytical
device which could create a false impression of how Thatchers theology
functions. Thatchers theology is essentially an integrated system, as the
above quote demonstrates. To make sense of its structure, I need to separate out the integrated components, recognizing the disservice this does
to the theology as a whole.
There are three overarching elements to Thatchers theology. The first
of these has three subsections and the second has one. The first major
element is Thatchers cultural identity as a Nonconformist Christian.
This is made up of her praise for values such as thrift, self-reliance, hard
work understood as a virtue, and independence; the responsibility of the
individual to family and community; and the importance of charitable
generosity. This identity is well known although it has not been analyzed
in detail. The second overarching element is the importance of national,
spiritual renewal, which is itself informed by the notion that British cultural life is significantly shaped by its historic Christian legacy. The third
key element is her language of morality, especially morality understood
as the opportunity for moral choice, and, the interrelated theme, freedom
as a moral category in the analysis of governments. I will examine each
of these in turn.
4. Thatcher the Nonconformist

Margaret Thatcher is a Nonconformist Christian; this is her cultural
identity, which informs her theological statements, and, more significantly, her political philosophy and policy. The term nonconformist does
not refer to any strict historical or theological definition of nonconformity,
242
which is too diverse for such an exact definition.5 Nor would a majority
of those who belong to contemporary Nonconformist churches necessarily accept Thatchers theological ideas as a valid reflection of their own.
However, within British culture and society, there are certain ideas and
values which are associated with Protestant Nonconformity and can lead
to the ascribing of a nonconformist cultural identity. The values include
an emphasis on economic independence, self-help, democracy, and a prosperity born of hard work but not displayed through a luxurious lifestyle.
Thatcher herself, in an address to the Scottish Conservative Party Conference in 1988, provides a list of the cultural values that we are seeking
to describe, as well as demonstrating her commitment to them; they are:
hard work, self-reliance, thrift, enterprisethe relishing of challenges,
the seizing of opportunities (Thatcher 1988b, 307). Further evidence of
her commitment to nonconformist values is provided when Robin Harris selects one of Thatchers speeches to illustrate her beliefs soon after she became leader of the Conservative Party. Thatcher states that
she had a fervent faithin the virtues of self-reliance and personal independence (Thatcher 1975a, 20). She argues that there has been a
subtle erosion of the essential virtues of free society which included
self-reliance and thrift. And there are more examples of these values
appearing in speeches from different periods of her career, and in her
memoirs. In her speech to the Conservative Party Conference in 1981, a
time of high unemployment, Thatcher illustrated one aspect of her nonconformist identity by references to work. She stated, I learned from
childhood the dignity which comes from work and, by contrast, the affront to self-esteem which comes from enforced idleness. For us, work
was the only way of life we knew, and we were brought up to believe that
it was not only a necessity but a virtue (Thatcher 1981a, 138). The language Thatcher utilized, such as the description of work as a virtue and
a source of dignity and lack of work as idleness, as opposed to, say,
burden and unemployment, reveals aspects of her cultural identity.
A speech to the Central Council in 1990 finds her praising the habit
of thrift, which ensures security in retirement and an inheritance for
children and grandchildren (Thatcher 1990b, 378). The second volume of
her memoirs has a section discussing the values required for the healthy
life of a free society; these include thrift, self-discipline, responsibility, pride in and obligation to ones community (Thatcher 1995, 554).
These nonconformist values translate into a critique of the problems of
5 Technically speaking, Nonconformist churches are any churches in the United Kingdom except the established Church of England, and including therefore the Roman Catholic
Church as well as Protestant churches. However, the notion of nonconformist identity is
closely associated with Protestant churches, not least as exemplified by the idea of a nonconformist conscience politically operative in the nineteenth century.
243
commercial and industrial society in the postwar period, which came to

a head in the late 1970s and early 1980s. What should be noted is that
Thatcher employs theological language in her discussion of economic
problems:
In terms of ethics and national economics, I should like to refer to what
I believe is an evil; namely, sustained inflation. For over thirty years the
value of our currency has been eroding. It is an insidious evil because its
effects are slow to be seen and relatively painless in the short run. Yet
it has a morally debilitating influence on all aspects of our national life.
It reduces the value of savings, it undermines financial agreements, it
stimulates hostility between workers and employers over matters of pay,
it encourages debt and it diminishes the prospects of jobs. . . . It is, in my
view, a moral issue, not just an economic one [Thatcher 1981b, 12526].
Thatchers government sought to tackle the problem of inflation

through restrictions on the money supply, including limitations on public spending and borrowing, at least during the early parts of her first
term as Prime Minister. The reduction of inflation remained a core aspect of her political rhetoric and what is interesting is that here we see
it described theologically, as an evil and a moral issue. The explanation for the relationship between economic policy and ethical categories
is found in her advocacy of nonconformist values. The rewards of thrift,
hard work, and enterprise are undermined by high inflation, and high inflation produces unemployment which was a waste of a countrys most
precious assets, the talents and energy of its people (Thatcher 1980,
113). If nonconformity is not rewarded, then people seek other ways to
achieve economic success which debilitates the national spirit and produces individual dependency on the state, a phenomenon which, as we
shall see below, Thatcher believed had exercised considerable influence
on the British people.
Instances of Thatchers advocacy of the values of self-reliance, thrift,
independence, enterprise, and the virtue of work occur throughout her
speeches and other writings as both statements of belief and also brief
asides. They could be taken to demonstrate a selfish individualism on
Thatchers part, and many have suggested this. However, there are two
other aspects of her philosophy, namely charitable giving, and the responsibility of the individual to family and community, which challenge
such analysis and allow Thatcher to maintain the theological validity of
her ideas.
It is often stated that Margaret Thatcher believed, in the phrase
she used, that there was no such thing as society. Thatcher has
been portrayed as the arch-individualist, generating a political and economic environment in which self-centered, isolated, antisocial action
flourished. It is further argued that Thatcher, in a manner typical of
244
neoliberals, only believed in society when issues of law and order and
national defense were involved; then individuals unite to punish the
criminal or resist the enemy. In The Downing Street Years, Thatcher acknowledges use of the phrase but argues she was quoted out of context
(Thatcher 1993, 626). She writes that her intention was to challenge the
rise in welfare dependency caused by overreliance on the state as the
helper of first resort. She expected individuals to be responsible for their
actions, something which was diminishing with increasing dependence
on the state, and to behave in a benevolent, socially responsible manner.
Thatchers argument that she did believe in society, albeit in a manner
different from many of her critics, is supported by her repeated emphasis on individual responsibility to the family and community, something
which is also an aspect of her nonconformist cultural identity.
The Iain Mcleod Memorial Lecture of 1977 sets out Thatchers position, which was to change little over the next twenty years, even though
there were changes of emphasis and terminology. In the lecture, Thatcher
argues that the self-interest of the individual is inextricably bound up
with the responsibility of that individual for others. She is seeking to
refute the idea that socialists occupy the moral high ground through
their emphasis on altruism, as opposed to the supposed Conservative
stress on self-interest and selfishness: There is not and cannot possibly be any hard and fast antithesis between self-interest and care for
others, for man is a social creature, born into family, clan, community,
nation, brought up in mutual dependence. The founders of our religion
made this a cornerstone of morality. The admonition Love thy neighbour as thyself, and do as you would be done by express this (Thatcher
1977a, 62). Thatcher offers reasons that are both naturalistic, by reference to human beings physical nature, and emotional, to explain why
self-interest must include care for others. People are born with material
needs, which they are able to recognize as necessary for others; Because
we want warmth, shelter, food, security, respect and other goods for ourselves, we can understand that others want them too (Thatcher 1977a,
6263). Thatcher suggests human beings experience a sense of fellow
feeling. The recognition of this shared humanity occurs first at the local
levelthat is, the family and neighborhoodand then extends further
outwards, with its limit seeming to be shared national culture, as opposed to any idea of universal humanity. In practical terms, Thatcher
erects boundaries on this human interdependence, particularly in Statecraft, when she stresses the so-called Anglo-Saxon bond between Britain
and the United States and questions the capacity of the European Union
to function without shared cultural identity (Thatcher 2002, 21, 35859).
In other words, the limits of the individuals neighborly responsibility are
cultural rather than geographical, based, rather dangerously, on the idea
of those others who are recognized as fellow human beings.
245
In her address to the congregation of St. Lawrence Jewry in 1978,

Thatchers notion of the individuals responsibility is expressed in more
theological language, as befits a church audience. There is that great
Christian doctrine that we are all members one of another, expressed
in the concept of the Church on earth as the body of Christ. From this
we learn our interdependence and the great truth that we do not achieve
happiness or salvation in isolation from each other but as members of society (Thatcher 1978, 76). Such explicit theological comment is rareit
tends to be characteristic of the early addresses before Thatcher became
Prime Ministerbut interesting because it demonstrates a theological
underpinning to beliefs and values which, although expressed in different terminology, do not change. In her second address to the church,
Thatcher stresses again the importance of interdependence: Human
beings have social needs as well. So it is that, in the course of history,
the family, the neighbourhood and that nation come into being. All these
communities have certain things in common. However they grew up, they
are held together by mutual dependence, by the experience which their
members have in common, by common customs and beliefs (Thatcher
1981b, 122). Thatcher appears to be adopting an essentialist position
concerning human nature herepeople are naturally socialalthough
it is not a position she develops at length. Thatcher repeats the idea
that social interdependence depends on shared identity, be it a notion of
neighborly concern or shared cultural values and beliefs.
There are examples of Thatcher referring to ideas of individual responsibility to the family and community after the second of her addresses to the congregation of St. Lawrence Jewry. These can be briefly
listed. The examples demonstrate the close relationship between personal responsibility, and values such as self-reliance, thrift, and the entrepreneurial spirit. In 1982, she tells Party Conference, The well-being
of our people is about far more than the Welfare State. It is about selfreliancefamily help, voluntary helpas well as state provision. In a
society which is truly healthy, responsibility is shared and help is mutual (Thatcher 1982, 207). What is interesting in this quotation is how
self-reliance and family and voluntary help are not judged as incompatible ideas; they might be seen as an illustration of the clash between
individualism and social concern. For Thatcher there is no contradiction
here because both are significant parts of her nonconformist cultural
identity. In her address to the 1988 Party Conference, Thatcher again
addresses the idea that socialism is morally superior to Conservatism.
Thatcher states that increased prosperity does not mean that people are
materialists; rather wealth creation with the aim of benefiting others
makes the individual a decent human being, committed to his family
and his community, and prepared to take responsibility on his own shoulders (Thatcher 1988a, 336). In an address to the Senate of the Polish
246
Republic, Thatcher argues that democracy encourages certain virtues,

of which she lists industry, thrift, self-reliance and taking responsibility for ones family (Thatcher 1991, 509). Again, what is illustrated by
this quotation is the fusion of a number of ideas, such as thrift and responsibility to the family. What is apparent is that Thatcher was no
arch-individualist; she believed individuals had responsibilities, and that
their best self-interest was served by recognizing and undertaking duties to the family and the identifiable cultural community. Her view was
that local people, the family and neighborhood, were the starting point,
foundation, and the cultural boundary of sympathetic feelings. And one
of the key expressions of community responsibility was charitable giving, the third element of her nonconformist identity, to which I shall now
turn.
Thatcher believed the opportunity to create wealth was a moral good,
that the wealth created was technically morally neutral, that is, it had
no status until it was spent or saved, and then moral decisions needed to
be made. Her argument had a negative and a positive aspect. The negative aspect, which is the least important of the two at this point in the
discussion, was that constraint on the opportunity to create wealth was
morally bad; it was a restriction of personal freedom. Freedom, limited
by the rule of law, allowed people to make their own decisions, something which was necessary if people were to be allowed the possibility of
moral behavior (Thatcher 1989, 350). The opposite of personal freedom,
according to Thatcher, was the collectivist state in socialist or communist form, which prevented individuals from realizing their creative and
entrepreneurial potential. Once again Thatcher was concerned with the
question of the morality of her politics: Some talk as if we should be
ashamed of harnessing mens talents to the common good. They paint
wealth as selfishness, a better standard of living as greed. But only by
creating wealth can you relieve poverty. Its what you do with your wealth
that counts (Thatcher 1989, 350). Thatcher is repeating here a point she
made in her address at St. Lawrence Jewry in 1978, namely that, Christ
did not condemn riches as such, only the way in which they were used and
those who put their trust in them (Thatcher 1978, 74). There is then opportunity for good behavior, the positive moral aspect of wealth creation,
and Thatcher encouraged benevolent charitable giving as the ideal, and
believed that, predominantly, this is what occurred when she was Prime
Minister. Thatcher praised the generosity of the Victorians: I had great
regard for the Victorians for many reasonsnot least their civic spirit
to which the increase in voluntary and charitable societies and the great
buildings and endowments of our cities pay eloquent tribute (Thatcher
1993, 627). She believed their charitable spirit was revitalized during her
time as Prime Minister, as she said in her speech to Party Conference in
1988:
247
As prosperity has increased, so the fundamental generosity of our people

has prompted far more personal giving. Of course, there will always be a
minority whose sole concern is themselves. But those who careand they
are the great majority of usnow have the means to give. And they are
giving in full measure: over 1,500 million a year to boost charities, rebuild
churches, help medical research and feed the hungry [Thatcher 1988a, 337].
She also suggested, for example, in her final speech as Prime Minister
that wealth creation allowed the country to spend more for better social
services (Thatcher 1990a, 449). Furthermore, she argued that the divisions between wealthy and poorer nations would be alleviated by wealth
creation (Thatcher 1993, 169).
Thatcher acknowledged two arguments which challenged her view
that wealth creation arose from, and generated the circumstances for,
moral good. The first, and main, argument was that as a result of her governments policies, the poor were getting poorer. Thatcher responded to
this accusation, albeit briefly, by arguing that her main concern was not
issues of fairness, represented by differentials in income, but personal
wealth measured as levels of spending. In the 1990 Censure debate immediately following her resignation as leader of the Conservative Party,
Thatcher was asked whether she realized that because of the transfer
of resources from the poor to the wealthy, the poll tax was unacceptable,
and that it was because of the poll tax that she has fallen (Thatcher
1990a, 448). Her response was brief and confrontational, arguing that
her opponents would rather have the poor poorer so long as there were
small differentials in income. Thatcher believed this was counterproductive because of its effect on the entrepreneurial spirit. The issue of
fairness is considered in more detail in the second volume of her memoirs.
Here she argues that incomes are not a satisfactory measure of peoples
poverty, she prefers to examine living standards, because some of those
with no income were spending more than the average for the population.
There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that [the bottom decile of
the populations] standard of living has risen. Most significantly, ownership of consumer durablesfridges, washing machines, central heating,
telephones, videos and so onin this group has increased dramatically.
Given these facts, the crude picture painted of the poor getting poorer
is just not credible (Thatcher 1995, 544). What is significant about this
point is not whether it stands up to social, economic, or political analysis,
but that it allows Thatcher to maintain that the effects of her policies
were not immoral; wealth creation is a moral good because all members
of society benefit.
In The Downing Street Years, Thatcher addressed the question of what
caused the violent disturbances in many major British cities during 1981.
As she acknowledged, some had argued that the social unrest was the
248
consequence of her governments monetarist policies, again a moral challenge. Thatcher had a different set of explanations for the causes of the
disturbances. She argued that the young men who were invariably
the rioters lacked any social or community restraint. There had been
a breakdown in the mechanisms, which prevented young men rioting,
especially a breakdown of authority, be it church, community, state, or
school authority. The evidence for this lack of working authority was not
only the riots themselves but also the rise in football hooliganism, race
riots and delinquency (Thatcher 1993, 14647). Again, the point here
is not to consider whether the consequences of Thatchers governments
policies were social unrest but to note that Thatcher was able, at least to
her own public satisfaction, to counter accusations that her policies had
immoral effects.
5. National Spiritual Renewal

The second major overarching element of Thatchers theology was her
concept of national, spiritual renewal. The spirit she had in mind was
Christianity. It was Thatchers belief, on becoming Prime Minister, that
she inherited a nation in decline, and this decline was not merely the
result of technical deficiencies in economic management or poor industrial relations, it was a spiritual decline. She believed the nation needed
a change of direction, a new attitude, a revitalization of the character
which had contributed to the international political power and economic
prosperity enjoyed by former generations. What she advocated, and then
argued had been achieved while she was Prime Minister, was the spiritual renewal of the British people. The idea of spiritual renewal may not
mean anything theological of course; it could be a general statement of
cultural or social invigoration, and, in part, this is what Thatcher meant.
However, the spirit Thatcher believed she sought to renew, and then had
renewed, was the Christian spirit, albeit a Christian cultural spirit akin
to the nonconformist values she advocated. It is not the same as a campaign of Christian conversion, an evangelization of Britain, although
Thatcher hints that such a thing was desirablebut the work of the
churches. The people she believed could be renewed, the people in whom
she had a faith, were people who responded to her own nonconformist
identity. They were people who would undertake moral behavior once
they had been inspired by her rhetoric and enabled by her governments
policies.
In 1979, Thatcher addressed the Conservative Party Conference advocating a new cultural mind-set. What was required was to move this
country in a new direction, to change the way we look at things, to
create a wholly new attitude of mind (Thatcher 1979, 97). Her government had a theological project; it was engaged in the massive task of
249
restoring confidence and stability to our people because unless the

spirit of the nation which has hitherto sustained us is renewed, our
national life will perish (Thatcher 1981b, 127). Thatcher explains her
motivation in 1980 for maintaining unpopular economic policies in more
than economic terms: I was utterly convinced of one thing: there was
no chance of achieving that fundamental change of attitudes which was
required to wrench Britain out of decline if people believed that we were
prepared to alter course under pressure (Thatcher 1993, 122). In the
1980 Party Conference speech, she states that there are many things to
be done to set this nation on the road to recovery, and I do not mean
economic recovery alone, but a new independence of spirit and zest for
achievement (Thatcher 1980, 110). Her memoirs confirm the argument
that what she believed Britain required was fundamental, spiritual renewal. She wrote of her first Party Conference speech as Conservative
leader, I was not going to make just an economic speech. The economy
had gone wrong because something else had gone wrong spiritually and
philosophically. The economic crisis was a crisis of the spirit of the nation (Thatcher 1995, 3056). In the speech Thatcher makes the point,
These are the two great challenges of our timethe moral and political
challenge and the economic challenge. They have to be faced together
and we have to master them both (Thatcher 1975b, 33). Thatchers belief was that the spiritual, moral, political, and economic crises were
all intimately related; certainly they could not be addressed separately,
and, in fact, they were but different descriptions of the same overall
crisis. The promotion of, and adherence to, the values of individualist
nonconformity would lead to economic success, social responsibility, and
political strength, meaning a strengthening of the democratic commitment to personal freedom.
In later speeches, Thatcher argued that British spiritual renewal
had been achieved, although presumably she did not believe the impact
was universal. At the Party Conference of 1987, Thatcher argued that
national revival had occurred and that Britain is confident, strong,
trusted. Confident, because attitudes have changed. . . . Strong, because
our economy is enterprising, competitive and expanding (Thatcher 1987,
293). The change of attitude she envisaged is illustrated when Thatcher
compared the confident, optimistic Britain with the gloom, pessimism, and sheer defeatism of the 1970s, when there was also poor
economic performance (Thatcher 1987, 284). The language on this occasion, as elsewhere when renewal is promoted, is not overtly religious
but its tenor and meaning is equivalent to the language of spirituality
employed in other speeches and her memoirs. I assign this language a
theological interpretation because the values to be renewed are those I
have described as nonconformist and because the renewal was to be, as
we shall see, a renewal of the Christian spirit.
250
In a 1992 address to the CNN Economic Development Congress,

the language is again more theological. Thatcher argued that in the
1970s, she had to confront dispirited peoples and stagnant economies
(Thatcher 1992, 542). However, her government created millions of
new shareholders, new homeowners, new entrepreneurs. The impact of
this was not just economic. It brought about a profound change in the
attitudessocial, political, even spiritualof our people. They became
more self-reliant, more responsible, more independent, more forwardlookingyou could say they became good nonconformists (Thatcher
1992, 543). There are questions which can of course be asked; those
who possess homes or shares, or take commercial risks, are not necessarily more self-reliant or more responsible; they may just be wealthy,
but this is not the point here. Rather, Thatchers assessment of the
problems she inherited in government cannot be described as either
ideological or technocratic; it is neither an example of applied political theory nor an exercise in pragmatism, but instead cultural religious analysis. The solution she desires is a type of conversion, albeit
she views it for historical reasons as renewal, to the nonconformity,
which will produce wealth and power. To understand why we emphasize
that spiritual renewal is Christian renewal, and thereby theological, we
have to consider Thatchers assessment of British cultural and religious
history.
In her address in 1981 to the congregation of St. Lawrence Jewry,
Thatcher explained how her faith in British people to achieve political
and economic power stems from her understanding of British history
as essentially successful. To return to and recapture former achievements, it is necessary to revitalize the spirit of the past, and this,
in Thatchers mind, was a Christian spirit. Thatcher argued that most
British people would accept that we have a national way of life and that
it is founded on Biblical principles. Thatcher believed that British cultural identity was being eroded, including Christian identity, and needed
replenishing.
These characteristics of our nationthe acknowledgement of the Almighty,
a sense of tolerance, an acknowledgement of moral absolutes and a positive
view of workhave sustained us in the past. Today they are being challenged. Although we are still able to live on the spiritual capital passed
down to us, it is self-deceiving to think we can do so for ever. Each generation must renew its spiritual assets if the integrity of the nation is to
survive [Thatcher 1981b, 125].
The context of the address, a church, allowed Thatcher to employ more

overtly religious language. The same language is not so obvious once
Thatcher became Prime Minister; her theological history and cultural
analysis is lacking, at least in explicit terms, from many of her important
251
speeches. It is, however, implicit in the language of spiritual renewal

discussed earlier. Furthermore, when we read Thatchers second volume
of memoirs, it becomes apparent that her theological interpretation of
British society had not changed. I find it difficult to imagine that anything other than Christianity is likely to resupply most people in the West
with the virtues necessary to remoralize society in the very practical
ways which the solution of many present problems require (Thatcher
1995, 554). She goes on to write that although she has resisted the argument that a Christian has to be a Conservative, nevertheless she did
believe there was a deep and providential harmony between the kind
of political economy I favour and the insights of Christianity (Thatcher
1995, 555). It is a theological shibboleth that no temporal order can be
equated with the Reign of God, and hence no political party can gain
exclusive divine approval. Given such a limitation, Thatcher comes as
close as she can to identifying Christianity and Conservatism. One can
speculate that for Thatcher any distinction between Christianity and
Conservatism is a technical theological distinction, and that the values
and principles associated with the two sets of beliefs were normally, temporally, indistinguishable. She comes very close to this position in her
volume Statecraft when she argues that certain cultures are more conducive to free-enterprise capitalism and thus to economic progress than
others (Thatcher 2002, 418). She had in mind the Judaeo-Christian
tradition as opposed to what she calls the great Asian religious traditions and the religious traditions of Africa (Thatcher 2002, 418). It is
not necessary to agree with this analysisand there are many problems
with itto recognize that for Thatcher a spiritual renewal meant essentially a Christian cultural renewal, not to fill the churches, but to ensure
economic growth and prosperity.
6. The Language of Morality

The third element of Thatchers theology was her employment of a language of morality which focused on the need for the individual to be able
to exercise free choice. Thatcher tends to assume that what constitutes
good and evil or right and wrong is known and agreed by all. She believed
that some people would do evilthis is why any freedom that is offered
people is freedom under a rule of lawbut she also believed that most
people, left to their own devices, would seek economic security in creative
ways for themselves and their families. She argued that Conservatives
had a basic faith in the moral good of individuals. Thatcher described
the belief that evil and wrongdoing could be eliminated by social and
material improvement as bad theology. She did not believe that man
is perfectable, which was an attack on collectivist ideas (Thatcher 1978,
75). References to what actually constitutes evil behavior are usually
252
limited to the notion of crime, while good behavior includes familial and
neighborly care, and benevolent charity, as we have seen.
While the content of morality is not explored in any detailed or systematic manner, the political context for moral decision making is a repeated concern. Thatcher argues that what she calls collectivist states
and organizations deny peoples political freedom and as such they deny
people the opportunity for making choices, and without the capacity to
choose, people cannot be moral: Morality lies in choosing between feasible alternatives. A moral being is one who exercises his own judgment in
choice, on matters great and small, bearing in mind their moral dimension, i.e., right and wrong (Thatcher 1977a, 63). The point is repeated in
a speech to the Zurich Economic Society: If there were no choice, there
would be no ethics, no good, no evil; good and evil have meaning only insofar as man is free to choose (Thatcher 1977b, 53). Those organizations
that remove choice impair the ability of the individual to behave morally:
Insofar as his right and duty to choose is taken away by the state, the
party or the union, his moral faculties, i.e. his capacity for choice, atrophy, and he becomes a moral cripple, in the same way as we should lose
the faculty of walking, reading, seeing, if we were prevented from using
them over the years (Thatcher 1977a, 63-64). It is not the individual
who acts immorally. The absence of choice means individuals assume
the status of moral neutrality, but it is the state or organization that is
immoral for removing choice. That is, Thatchers discussion of morality
is mainly a discussion of individual political and economic freedom. This
is illustrated well if we return to the speech to the Zurich Economic Society. In the speech, Thatcher lumps together what she calls collectivism,
socialism, statism, dirigism [sic], whatever you call it (Thatcher 1977b,
49). She argues that a tide is turning against these forms of state control
because of their material failures. She then states, I have dwelt so far
on the material superiority of the free society. But we must not focus our
attention exclusively on the material, because though important, it is not
the main issue. The main issues are moral. Thatcher explains what she
means: The economic success of the Western world is a product of its
moral philosophy and practice. The economic results are better because
the moral philosophy is superior. It is superior because it starts with the
individual, with his uniqueness, his responsibility, and his capacity to
choose. This Thatcher contrasts with socialist-statist philosophy which
sets up a centralized economic system to which the individual must conform, which subjugates him, directs him and denies him the right to free
choice (Thatcher 1977b, 53). Thatcher is not arguing that there can be
no moral action in Communist countries, just as it is not the case that
Western democracies contain people who only behave morally because
they are politically free. She is making judgments about governments
and arguing that they cannot be economically successful unless they
253
provide a context in which people can be morally good, for which they
have to provide people with freedom to make choices. In fact, Thatcher
is arguing that her brand of responsible individualism means protection
of peoples freedom from state and organizational control so that they
can be economically successful, entrepreneurs, and then be in a position
to behave generously and benevolently. Of Conservative belief she says,
At the heart of our belief is the principle of freedom, under a rule of
law. Freedom that gives a man room to breathe, to take responsibility, to
make his own decisions and to chart his own course. Remove mans freedom and you dwarf the individual, you devalue his conscience and you
demoralize him. That is the heart of the matter (Thatcher 1989, 350).
Collectivist states and organizations do not make bad judgments, moral
mistakes; they are of their essence immoral, and all that can happen is
that people realize their immorality and end their existence. In fact, so
dominant is Thatchers anticollectivism that it is difficult to conceive of
her analysis of morality as anything other than a critique of the absence
of individual freedom.
The basis of Thatchers Christianity, and of her analysis of what constitutes morality, is the individual who makes choices for which she or
he will then be responsible. The fundamental choice for the individual
is soteriological. The 1977 Iain Mcleod Memorial Lecture illustrates the
point: Our religion teaches us that every human being is unique and
must play his part in working out his own salvation (Thatcher 1977a,
61). What Thatcher meant here is partly explained by the contrast she
draws between her own position and the socialists, who, she argues, attempt to mold human beings to conform to their social schemas, and thus
remove individual responsibility. Individuals must be responsible for the
choices and actions they undertake, and ultimately this is an eschatological responsibility. A second illustration of the fundamental importance
of soteriological individual responsibility comes in an address to the congregation of St. Lawrence Jewry in 1978: What mattered fundamentally
was mans relationship to God, and in the last resort this depended on
the response of the individual soul to Gods grace (Thatcher 1978, 71).
The key term here is response rather than grace. The grace of God
can be assumed to be available, but the nature and character of human
responses differ widely. Thatcher adhered to this understanding of Christianity throughout her career. In her final book, Statecraft, she writes,
Christianity . . . has also emphasised the role of the individual who is
called to personal encounter with God (Thatcher 2002, 251). The importance of these soteriological references, and they are not detailed or
developed in any theological depth, is that they provide an explanation
for the considerable emphasis Thatcher places on responsible, individual
choice as a moral category of analysis. To reiterate the point, Thatcher
believed responsible individualism and the opportunity for moral choice
254
are fundamentally important because of her understanding of Gods relationship with humanity. This said, the explicit soteriological statements
quoted above are rare, and are usually a characteristic of Thatchers
earlier speeches.
The political implications of Thatchers anticollectivism are well
known and do not need discussing in detail here. Her rhetoric attacked
the Soviet Union and communist countries in Eastern Europe and Asia,
notably China, as well as socialist political parties in Western Europe, of
course mainly the Labour Party in the United Kingdom, and the Trade
Union movement. Thatcher has also attacked the European Union as
a collectivist organization. One example will suffice to illustrate the
nature of Thatchers critique of collectivist states and organizations;
it comes in an address to the Senate of the Polish Republic after she
had left office and after the fall of the Berlin Wall. In this address,
she said that communismas the most extreme and odious variety of
socialismseeks to deny mans God-given and unequal talents, seeks
to pervert the natural aspirations of human nature and seeks to crush
the human spirit (Thatcher 1991, 509). She implies it is anti-Christian
because it commits the ultimate infraction of the First Commandment
because it demands worship of the state (Thatcher 1991, 509). The
language of idolatry, combined with ideas of blasphemy, expresses, in
extreme form, the type of language that Thatcher employed to condemn collectivisms and, in reverse, to support her idea of democratic
capitalism.
What is also interesting alongside some of this more familiar rhetoric
is how Thatchers anticollectivism was employed as an analytical tool to
understand economic and political events and institutions. In the second
volume of her memoirs, The Path to Power, she wrote that a collectivist spirit came to dominate wartime Britain, and remained influential, in a negative sense, for thirty-five years (Thatcher 1995, 46). One
part of her explanation of Churchills defeat in the 1945 election was that
the command economy required in wartime conditions had habituated
many people to an essential socialist mentality (Thatcher 1995, 44).
The implication here is that people can be trapped by a socialist mindset. Socialism has a cultural identity and power to ensnare people. When
she arrived as a minister at the Department of Education and Science,
Thatcher argued that the clashes she had with the civil service were a result of the ethos of the DES which was self-righteously socialist. This
was not, she wrote, a comment on civil servants voting habits, which
she did not know, but their almost reflex belief in the ability of central
planners and social theorists to create a better world (Thatcher 1995,
166). Also, her disapproval of the National Front is expressed by arguing
that such groups were just as much socialist as they were nationalist.
255
All collectivism is always conducive to oppression: it is only the victims

who differ (Thatcher 1995, 406). It should not be said that Thatcher did
not also revile the racism of the National Front, but it is interesting to
appreciate the role her anticollectivism plays in the condemnation of a
fascist political party.
Alongside Thatchers analysis of collectivisms and the collectivist
mind-set, there is also the notion of the ordinary individual who requires
protection from those who utilize political organizations to oppress others. In a sense, this is Thatchers rationale for a political life. The people
who require protection are ordinary people, the majority of individuals
in whom Thatcher has faith, that is, people who make sacrifices for
their young family or their elderly parents or who help their neighbours
and take care of their neighbourhoods (Thatcher 1990b, 384). These are
people who, according to Thatcher, desire jobs, home ownership, savings,
some investment in the business which employs them, good schools,
and good hospitals. As we have seen, these individuals are not individualistic, in the sense of desiring personal profit and selfish rewards at
the expense of family or local community. They are individuals with immediate local duties, who do not wish to exercise extraordinary control
over others and who desire the opportunity to fulfill modest personal
expectations. Their ordinariness is a political condition; they want independence where possible and choice when part of larger organizations,
including the state. If they are provided with the option, so Thatcher
believed, they would share her rejection of collectivisms and embrace
economic and political freedom, within the rule of law.
What has been attempted here is the identification and construction
of Margaret Thatchers theology and an analysis of its impact on her political choices and policies. I have argued that she had a theo-political
cultural identity which shaped her instinctive reactions to political life.
This may well have been formed at an early age in the childhood home.
This central identity has been ignored by almost all of her biographers,
by political scientists, and by theologians. This is a sign of the low status
of theological work in the United Kingdom when so overt a Christian
identity can be so comprehensively ignored. I have investigated the identity in great detail as this best exemplifies what I am seeking to argue methodologically. As a result of this study, what should be clear
is that theologians can make an analytical contribution to the study
of political phenomena, employing theology as a critical tool. This is
achieved by the self-limiting ordinance of not making social or political judgments and by thinking instead in terms of theological categories. The construction of a variety of such categories will enable a
more critical discussion of the function and content of these cultural
identities.
256
REFERENCES
Archbishop of Canterburys Commission on Urban Priority Areas (ACCUPA)
1985
Faith in the City. A Call for Action by Church and Nation. London:
Church House Publishing.
Campbell, John
2001
Margaret Thatcher. Volume One: The Grocers Daughter. London:
Pimlico.
Gorringe, Tim
1999
Karl Barth. Against Hegemony. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harris, Robin
1997
Margaret Thatcher. The Collected Speeches. London: HarperCollins
Publishers.
Jenkins, David
1988
God, Politics and the Future. London: SCM Press.
Lindbeck, George
1984
The Nature of Doctrine. Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age.
Philadelphia, Pa.: The Westminster Press.
Plant, Raymond
1985
The Anglican Church and the Secular State. In Church and Politics Today. Essays on the Role of the Church of England in Contemporary Politics, edited by G. Moyser, 31336. Edinburgh: T&T
Clark.
Riddell, Peter
1991
The Thatcher Era. And Its Legacy, 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Thatcher, Margaret
1975a
Central Council, 1975. See Harris 1997, 2022.
1975b
Party Conference, 1975. See Harris 1997, 2938.
1977a
The Ian Macleod Memorial Lecture. See Harris 1997, 5869.
1977b
Zurich Economic Society. See Harris 1997, 4857.
1978
St. Lawrence Jewry, 1978. See Harris 1997, 7077.
1979
1980
1981a
1981b
St. Lawrence Jewry, 1981. See Harris 1997, 12130.
1982
1987
1988a
1988b
Scottish Party Conference. See Harris 1997, 295307.
1989
1990a
Censure Debate, 1990. See Harris 1997, 44355.
1990b
Central Council, 1990. See Harris 1997, 37385.
1991
Senate of the Polish Republic, 1991. See Harris 1997, 50010.

1992
1993
1995
2002
257
CNN Economic Development Congress. See Harris 1997, 54055.

The Downing Street Years. London: HarperCollins Publishers.
The Path to Power. London: HarperCollins Publishers.
Statecraft. Strategies for a Changing World. London: HarperCollins
Publishers.
Young, Hugo
1993
One of Us. A Biography of Margaret Thatcher. Final edition. London:
Pan Books.

Margaret Thatcher&#39;s Christian Faith

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Margaret Thatcher&#39;s Christian Faith

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MARGARET THATCHERS CHRISTIAN FAITH

A Case Study in Political Theology

Journal of Religious Ethics

to as Judaeo-Christian values: indeed my whole political philosophy is

It would be possible to go on at some length detailing the occasions when

1. The Importance of Christianity for Thatcher