Podcast: Why Being A Christian Means Being Political

In this latest episode of Affinity Talks Gospel Podcast, Graham Nicholls and Lizzie Harewood sit down with CARE’s James Mildred to talk about:

• why Christians should care about politics;
• the significance of passages such as Genesis 9, Mathew 22 and Romans 13 for helping us to understand what governing involves and how we should relate to our government;
• the importance of churches being willing to speak about political theology and encourage genuine discussion;
• the current state of British politics (as of 13 May 2026) and the historical stepping stones that have helped us get here;
• what Christians can be praying about politics and political leaders;
• and whether it is appropriate/useful for Christianity to retain the privileged status it’s historically had in the UK.

Lizzie Harewood (0:11) 

So, welcome to the Affinity Talks Gospel Podcast. My name is Lizzie Harewood and I’m here as usual with Graham. Hello, Graham.

Graham Nicholls (0:20) 

Hello. 

Lizzie Harewood (0:21) 

And we’re here today with James Mildred from CARE, who I think we’ve had on before at least once, is that correct?

James Mildred (0:30) 

Yeah, once, twice, it’s one of those.

Lizzie Harewood (0:34)

One of the regulars, well, and we’re here to talk about the state of politics in the UK and what’s happening. So, Graham, what do you think? (0:44) What should we be quizzing James on first? What’s the most important issue?

Graham Nicholls (0:48) 

I think a kind of a bit of a chat around the state of British politics, but probably a question behind that question, which is – why should we even care? You know, we’ve got gospel work to get on with. It’ll be interesting because I think all three of us are quite interested in politics, so we’ll have a fun discussion, whatever happens. But why should anyone else kind of listening in think, oh, I’m going to devote a little bit of time to talking about this because it matters. So, I think that would be a great place to start, James, as to why does it even matter what the state of British politics is?

James Mildred (1:18) 

Yeah, I mean, I think it’s very easy for Christians to assume that we get on with our daily lives, we get on with our jobs, we get on with our church work, and we are to varying degrees impacted by what’s going on in national politics or local politics. But, you know, apart from a sort of glancing look every now and again, or it coming up in a conversation – generally at church lunches and when you’re doing hospitality – it’s not really something to bring up. Politics then becomes just the sole interest of the nerds like the three of us here who have an interest and who care and we get into the drama of it all.

James Mildred (2:04) 

And I think two things in response to that. The first is, I think that assumption fails to remember what politics at its most basic is really about. So, the definition of politics that I find most helpful is very simple. It’s the idea of people coming together to make decisions for how we’re going to order and structure our common life. So, we all share things all the time, don’t we? We all share public transport, we all share the same streets, the same parks, and there are rules that govern how we are to use those things. And it’s really interesting because, of course, at the moment in this country, there’s a perception that the rules are not being enforced and are not being consistently applied. And so, I do wonder whether more and more Christians will start getting engaged in politics because they think, actually, hold on, yeah, this is a problem. So, that’s the first thing is to remember what politics at its most basic is.

James Mildred (2:59)

But the second thing I’d say is every Christian, by definition of who we are in Christ, is political because we declare and we confess with our mouths that Jesus is Lord. And that’s not just a political slogan. That is a radical reorientating of the list of priorities in our life. Everything in our life, our family, our jobs, our homes, everything is subordinate to the Lordship of Christ. We want to bring every part of our life into line with Christ’s Word and Christ’s teaching. And when Paul wrote Romans and included that wonderful confession, he was, of course, writing in a context of the Roman Empire where Caesar was Lord. So, this was a very revolutionary cry from the Christians: no, no, we will respect Caesar. We will honour Caesar as the emperor, as the ruler, but our highest allegiance is to Jesus Christ. And so, if you’re a Christian by virtue of being in Christ, then you are doing politics when you seek to bring your life under the rule of the Lord Jesus. 

James Mildred (4:13)

And so, I think for those two reasons, actually, we should care about politics because of what it is, because we are political. And then the third thing I would add is that we are called, I believe, to care for the nation where God has placed us. So, I think you can draw that from passages like Jeremiah 29:7 where God writes to his old covenant people in captivity in Babylon in a staggering letter that he sends to the captives through his prophet. It doesn’t say, ‘isolate yourselves, stay away, retreat.’ He says, pray for the prosperity of Babylon because in that prosperity is your prosperity. And then if you go to the New Testament and that amazing description of Christians as salt and light – Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:13-16 – again, you’re back at the point of, by virtue of who we are, we are supposed to have an impact, not just in our churches and in the streets around our churches, but we don’t need to limit the metaphor that Jesus gives us. We’re to have an impact in the world, in society. And given that politics touches every facet of our lives, you can just see the connection straight away that we’re to have an impact there because actually that’s who we are. We are impactful people just because we’re in Christ.

Graham Nicholls (5:31) 

Just to test that a little bit, I think you answered it, but what about those people who would say Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world”?

James Mildred (5:39)

Yeah, that’s right. Of course Jesus says that, but the kingdom is broken into this world [e.g. Luke 17:21]. You know, the age to come has already dawned in the resurrection of Christ. So, the kingdom comes from another place, but it is here and it is being expanded. I mean, it’s that wonderful little vision in Daniel [2:44-45] of the stone not cut by human hands. It becomes a mountain that fills the earth and that the culmination of the kingdom is still waiting the day when Christ returns. But in the meantime, we’re in the age of kingdom expansion. And so yes, the kingdom is not of this world and that’s because the values of the kingdom, the law of the kingdom, come to us from another place. And thank goodness, because look at the mess we’re making of the world with all the other kingdoms that have come and gone. This unique kingdom has broken in and the new age has already dawned.

Graham Nicholls (6:24) 

Do you want to interrogate that a little bit, Lizzie?

Lizzie Harewood (6:27)

Yeah, I mean, I was going to make the point actually – a slight segue. So, as it happens, we’re working through Romans at church on a Sunday evening at the moment and our passage for this past Sunday was Romans, the beginning of Romans 13, when Paul is teaching about God instituting governments and we’re to be subject to governing authorities. And obviously, this is a much broader point in that God does institute governing authorities, whether we like them or not, and whether in this country that is in a democratic system or where in other countries where they may be authoritarian or dictatorial etc., God has some kind of intention through governing authorities. 

Lizzie Harewood (7:16) 

Now, I think as Christians we are enormously – well, as citizens in this country – we are enormously privileged in that, although we do not have perfect governing authorities, we do have those that we can interact with, we can engage with, that we can influence. And obviously, God uses governments to maintain order, to punish evil, to reward good. Now, obviously, we don’t always see eye to eye with what the definition of evil is in perhaps some of our laws and our policies, but I feel that whether we’re talking about kingdoms or not – and I will go on to interrogate that – my takeaway is what an incredible opportunity we have as Christians to engage with this process. And we must be doing that. 

Lizzie Harewood (8:16)

But I think it’s interesting – as you rightly point out, a lot of Christians kind of do tend to veer away under that premise of God’s kingdom is not one that is political, and that we should be very wary about engaging in party politics, but should be seeking to engage in increasing Christ’s kingdom on earth, which of course I do agree with.  But yeah, I guess – what would you say about… so yeah, one of the things I think I’m interested in understanding is how churches at the moment, or how they have in the past, have encouraged Christians to engage in politics in their lives and in the life of the church, and what does that look like?

James Mildred (9:19)

I mean, I think if you go back through history, it seems to me that, more often than not, God has used particular individuals from different churches rather than, say, an entire denomination. That’s not completely the case – so think of the Free Church of Scotland, for example. They used to run lots and lots of schools and be very directly involved in education and in measures to alleviate poverty, and that kind of thing. But thinking of England, for example, you could think of William Wilberforce, you could think of Lord Shaftesbury, you could think of Hannah Moore, the Clapham sect. These were incredible individuals who God gave a real heart and passion for a particular area of social reform. So it could be that there’s individuals in our churches who just need to be prayed for and encouraged and equipped and taught well and discipled well, so that when they go out into the public square, they can represent King Jesus faithfully and God can bless their gifts and maybe use them as instruments of social reform, social impact, that kind of thing.

James Mildred (10:25)

I think for me, for an entire congregation, the single biggest thing we can do for politics is two things. One is to pray, because that’s following 1 Timothy 2, that Paul wants churches to be praying for those in authority. So how we model that, how we do that, building that into our regular rhythm of meeting together on a Sunday, praying specifically about issues as they come up. There needs to be some discernment and some wisdom from the elders in particular around which issues should be prayed about publicly and which should be, for example, raised in maybe a small group setting or a prayer meeting setting. I think there’s gospel freedom to make those decisions. Churches will come to different views on that. But I think that’s one of the main things that churches must do. I mean, it’s not even an option. It’s not even a ‘nice to’ – if you remember in the pastoral prayer – throw in a quick prayer about the cabinet. No, this is a part of our holy calling as God’s people to pray for people who don’t pray for themselves. So I think that’s the first thing. 

James Mildred (11:29) 

I think the second thing is – I do think churches have a responsibility to teach and to do political theology.So to try to help people understand this is what a Christian worldview says about these different issues. This is what it means to go into the public square. This is particularly important now. I mean, it’s always been the case that we should be doing this, and probably in different seasons of life the church has done it better than in other seasons, and far be it for me to make overly generalised comments about whether it’s done that well or not. But the whole debate that’s definitely creeping into churches here in the UK but started in America around Christian nationalism, one way to look at that debate is that it is a debate around how we do political theology as much as it is around what are we trying to achieve with political theology. And for me the how is just as important.

James Mildred (12:22)

You know, I’ve seen articles in recent times criticising and engaging with Tim Keller and saying that his third way-ism of trying to diagonalize everything and say, well, on the one hand there’s some good in socialism, but on the other hand there’s some bad things, and on the one hand there’s some good in conservatism, on the other hand there’s some bad things. A lot of criticism of that is [that it is] no longer relevant, no longer helpful in this day and age, that the context has changed. And that is true, that the political context in this country as well has changed enormously. But I would be less speedy to jettison that particular approach, because I think, while you might make some amendments and some tweaks to it and so on, there is a wisdom in recognising that the Scriptures do teach us that we are to be connecting with culture and also challenging culture as well, and that applies to our political engagement. 

James Mildred (13:13) 

And so I think churches need to inform and help their congregants understand, for example, this is what the historic church understood by political engagement, that historically the Reformed Church and the Church of England and Presbyterians, they believed that the church and state should be closer together. They believed that the church had a responsibility to speak truth to power, but they also believed that the state had a responsibility to impose Christian religion upon society. Now I come from a non-conformist Baptist background where there’s a different political theology – there’s some things that are shared and are the same, but the background I come from is much more about religious freedom, about freedom of conscience, about maybe the state having more of a role to govern our behaviour towards each other, but not getting involved in regulating or over-regulating which religion we follow and allowing that freedom of conscience. And you see, I think it’s a mistake for churches just to [say], ‘Oh, it’s too complicated, let’s just leave that, let’s just…’ No, I think you need to think and work as elders and leadership teams, as theologians, on what are your convictions on this and how will that impact how you pray and how you teach political theology. So that would be my basis.

Graham Nicholls (14:34) 

It’s really interesting. I don’t think it’s happening much though, is it? I mean our church would be a wonderful example but – we’re doing hardly any. We’ve had you twice to talk about beginning and end of life, we’ve had you to talk about borders and nationalism and so on, but I think to be fair and to be humble about it, I’m not sure we have an articulated political theology most of the time, if you know what I mean. I think we have views and we have some quite good discussions now and then, but I’m not sure, I’m not even sure I’d know where to start. If I was to say, yeah, I want to do a series, you know, in my church on political theology. 

James Mildred (15:10) 

Yeah, where to start?

Graham Nicholls (15:12)

Yeah, it’s interesting. 

James Mildred (15:13) 

I have a couple of ideas for you, Graham, just throw them out there. For me, and actually we’re – God willing – in the coming months, we’ll publish a new resource from CARE: ‘God and Government’. And we’ve had to be careful because CARE isn’t a denomination, so we’re not aligning ourselves with any particular strand of political theology in terms of the areas of disagreement. We are simply aligning ourselves with – this is the stuff where I think most Christians, most denominations would have broad agreement.

James Mildred (15:47)

And for me, I start in writing that, I started in Genesis 1 and the mandate that God gives to rule, to govern, to subdue the world, but a lot of the heavy lifting is done by Genesis 9. And I’ve been very influenced by Jonathan Leeman’s work on Genesis 9 and the command that God gave to Noah and the repeating of the cultural mandate from Genesis 1, but with modifications because it’s now a fallen world, and Jonathan Leeman calls Genesis 9:1-7 ‘the great commission for government’. [You can read more about Jonathan Leeman’s thinking here.] I found that a really helpful concept as I thought about – okay, what does God require of governments? And then I go into the Proverbs and everything in the Proverbs around what is the King expected and commanded to do? You can actually draw out the most incredible principles that are relevant for governments today. And I was very influenced by an amazing sermon by Chris Wright at All Souls on the Proverbs and the instructions to the King [which is available here]. And then into the New Testament – then you hit particularly, I think, the passage where Jesus is dealing with the question, should I pay my tax to Caesar? He says, “Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s to God what is God’s” [Matthew 22:21] – the legitimacy of Caesar’s authority – but also Romans 13 and then 1 Peter 2.

James Mildred (17:07) 

So that could be a little series because I think what you’re doing there is, rather than saying I’m going to do a series on political theology, you’re going to do a series on God and government, and you could do a final message if you wanted to be particularly striking and distinct and on maybe more of a adult Sunday school type vibe around – this is what a historic kind of Presbyterian model would look like, this is what the Baptist model would look like, that kind of thing.

Lizzie Harewood (17:37)

So are you suggesting then – the whole mantra of something as parents we do with children when they are trying new foods, you provide, they decide, you give them this array of theologically palatable ideas about government, governance, and then congregants go away, make their own mind up? Because I think one of the things I’ve noted is that Christians of all political flavours will often approach the topic with their mind completely made up and then decide to major on certain parts of Bible teaching to back up their own instinctive perspective. And I think we all do that to some extent, unless we have perhaps a little bit of humility to have the edges rounded. 

Lizzie Harewood (18:34)

And I would say that in church we try not to talk too much about – particularly because my husband’s the minister – political leanings, but major on perhaps those issues you’ve talked about, you know, beginning and end of life and etc. But within families we can often have quite fiery debates because we have some different perspectives on certain issues. So how can we ensure that we are getting a thoroughly biblical understanding of government, governance? What does the Bible say about states, the size of a state, about nations and their borders? Because, yeah, I certainly know that even introducing that topic could create some tension and the suggestion.

James Mildred (19:33)

I mean, Graham is a vastly more experienced pastor and elder than I am, so I think he would have a lot more wisdom on this than I would. My only quick reflection is that I think there are models of teaching that are different from your Sunday sermon, which in itself is the risen Lord Jesus, the head of the church, the king of the universe is speaking to his people and to those who come in. So it is, in one sense, an incredible kind of political act all by itself. But I think we have found at TRC – Trinity Road Chapel, Wandsworth – we have found that doing things like ‘theology for all’ sessions, which is on a Sunday afternoon, where it’s seminar style, discussion on tables, listening to feedback, or a hot topic, for example, which – many, many other churches do similar things. I think there’s value in doing it in that format, because that allows for people to talk and to debate and to discuss. And of course, you can introduce it by just reminding people about the importance of gentleness, of listening well.

James Mildred (20:54) 

And I was struck by a conversation not that long ago – someone had been on a table at lunch and was very upset, because the views being expressed were very political and very strong. And they really, really disagreed. And I felt sorry for this person, because it must have been really difficult. At the same time, I was sort of like, that’s local church – the disagreement wasn’t over a primary theological issue, it was over politics. And I’d hate the idea that our response to that would be, okay, just don’t talk about politics. I think the answer is, just stop assuming that everybody in your church thinks the same as you on different political matters. But Graham, I’d love to hear your thoughts, because I’ve not been at this gig for very long, so.

Graham Nicholls (21:39)

Yeah, I just remember, we actually had you for a church weekend as well, and you did some of the Genesis stuff as well. So we’ve had quite a lot. You’re actually doing pretty well. We’re quite well informed on it. But, you know, still got a long way to go. I think most churches like ours could do more. And I think that we are really committed to expositional preaching, working through a passage, so you’re controlled by the text, and in terms of topic and range and all those sort of things. So I don’t want us to abandon that. And we do just take a pause every now and then and do something thematic. And I think having something both thematic, which is kind of declarative, but also discussional is really helpful. 

Graham Nicholls (22:30)

I think we, a bit like Lizzie said, we underestimate quite how biased we all are in the sense. There were some baptisms last weekend, and so my son was up from Exmouth, and he said something like, ‘Yeah, but I’m quite worried about the rise of populism.’ And I said, ‘What’s intrinsically wrong with populism?’ And we had a really good discussion about it. But I think all of us are influenced by either people who say woke, or they say hard left, or they say populism, and they just throw out those words. And we’re all influenced – I’m influenced in the other direction, probably. I didn’t jump down my son’s throat. But I could have started jumping down and say, ‘How ridiculous, what is actually wrong with populism? That’s just to do with being popular and saying things that people want to hear. Isn’t that what politicians always have done? It’s just a pejorative term, but it doesn’t mean anything.’ I think I did say something like that, but much more politely. But I think – sorry, to come all the way around – I think chatting about it is necessary, along with declaring some of the truths, declaring some of the theology, because we’ve got to work out and have our prejudices tested a bit more than we do sometimes. 

James Mildred (23:57)

I totally agree. And actually I love what you said – the commitment to expositional preaching is so helpful, because if you do that, you will get to Romans 13. At some point, you will do 1 Peter 2, at some point, you’d hope you’d do the passage in the Gospels, where Jesus is talking about rendering to Caesar what is Caesar’s. So there are passages that are – you know, Revelation as well. If you’re going to do, if you ever do Revelation, then yes, that you’ll get to it. There’s so many – I think, if you’re doing expositional preaching, you will declare those wonderful things that actually most evangelical Christians can agree with when it comes to political theology. And then in the other formats, you can get into the nitty gritty of where there might be some, some differences.

James Mildred (24:40) 

And let’s be honest – I was thinking about this the other day, I was thinking, well, how many (and I don’t know the answer so this may be really unfair of me to say this) card carrying ministers who are signed up to something like the Westminster Confession of Faith, with its particular slant on the role of the state when it comes to the upholding and supporting of Christian religion, how many of them actually are doing political theology? Not just by declaring on Sunday services, but by going beyond that in terms of advocating for the state to uphold Christianity? How many of them are making that case out there? And I mean, I scan for these things most days, and I don’t see them out there making that case. So it’s possible that, at the moment, it’s a little bit more theoretical than practical, but again, not to derail the discussion. I do think for me, the rise of Christian nationalism is going to push us into having to talk about these things, and we can’t just ignore them any longer, or say, oh no, that’s secondary. Well, it may well be secondary, but it’s going to become a live issue in our churches, and so.

Graham Nicholls (25:57) 

Yeah, what do you think – go on, Lizzie, sorry.

Lizzie Harewood (26:00)

Oh, I was just going to follow on from that – in that I think that, if we decline, or only do a very light touch on some of these issues, then we are offloading this responsibility, actually, to perhaps folks that don’t have the same good intent, even if they are Christians, or don’t have the same care for the flock. Because we all know that people in our churches are chronically online – as many of us are – and they are getting political input, are perhaps getting more entrenched in their views, or getting certain nuances on certain issues that may or may not be helpful. And I suppose, as you say, James, I think this is going to push us over into a space and time where we can’t ignore this anymore, because people are already having these conversations under the table, and they’re not always helpful. That doesn’t mean I think everyone’s being radicalised. But I think the algorithm does lead you into perhaps solidifying certain views, and not necessarily engaging with people face to face, your brothers and sisters, in real life. And I know, for example, in our church, I’ve got a dear brother, who I love, who would have a radically different views to me on politics. And we’d have quite productive and good natured conversation in the flesh. But I certainly know that we’d probably go down different avenues online, that would cause us to bear, you know, some really malintent sometimes towards their perspective on things. And I don’t think that’s healthy at all.

Graham Nicholls (28:02)

What do you think, James, is the state of British politics at the moment? We’ve done the question about Christian engagement, but just reeling back – as we record this [on Wednesday 13 May 2026], Keir Starmer is still in office, he may not be by the time this goes out [on Monday 18 May 2026], who knows? But in general, rising a little bit above what’s going to happen in the next few days or weeks, it feels to me like it’s more polarised. And the commitment to the rule of law and the political process is much more fractured than it’s been in most of my lifetime. I know, older people always say, ‘It’s not like it used to be.’ And it certainly wasn’t great when I was growing up. But I don’t know – it feels like that consensus, that commitment, to one culture is not not really there. Is that fair?

James Mildred (28:55)

Yeah, I think that’s fair. There’s any number of ways to answer this question. But I think you start, for example, with the instability at the very top. And the fact that, since 2016, when David Cameron resigned, because of the Brexit referendum not going the way he was campaigning for, we have cycled through so many prime ministers, and we appear to be about to go through another leadership transition. I think I’ve always taken the view with Keir Starmer that he’ll hold on much longer than people realise, because the Labour Party is not very good at deposing leaders. And also the rules make it harder to depose leaders than the Conservative Party. But also, this is someone who doesn’t, and isn’t, I don’t think, that able to read the political situation. And so he’s also very stubborn, which is both a strength and a weakness. So I have long held the view that he will he will hold on for some considerable time yet. I don’t know exactly when and I’m not going to try and predict that. But either way, I don’t think it’s sustainable for Keir Starmer to remain as Prime Minister until the next election, which is about two or three years away. So whenever it happens, we’ll then be in another leadership transition before the election.

James Mildred (30:12)

And I think the role of Prime Minister has become so at the mercy of backbenchers whose power has dramatically increased, again, go back to post Brexit and the logjam in Parliament, the ability of backbenchers to coordinate and to stymie their own governing  party rather than it falling along the traditional lines of ‘MPs generally vote with the government and the opposition do the opposing’. It’s much more febrile. And I think also that the recent local elections clearly demonstrate that the two-party system that has been the dominant model since World War Two is just no longer anywhere near as strong or robust as it used to be – that the rise of Reform for those who are more centre right – the rise of the Greens for those who are on the left – Liberal Democrats doing pretty well; they always seem to remain just about enough of a presence at the local election. 

James Mildred (31:11)

So all of this is coupled then with the #BrokenBritain narrative – the idea that nothing works. And even the basics of your doctor’s surgery, managing to get an appointment and then linking up with your pharmacy so you can collect your medicine in time and that being a smooth and easy process, even that just doesn’t seem to work very well. And then you get into public transport and you get into all manner of kind of other things like about Birmingham and the bin strikes. And there’s just that sense, isn’t there, that things are just not working? And where I think it’s heading is fascinating, because there will be no immediate answer, I don’t think, in the next general election, because what Reform have to do to get a majority in Westminster from five or six MPs, whatever they’re on, to go from that to 326 would be an election feat of astronomical proportions. And so if they don’t manage that, what are we talking? Coalition? That some kind of supply and provide deal like the Tories had with the DUP? And so, weirdly, we’ve got an electoral system that’s based around having a strong governing party and a strong opposition. But we’re moving more towards, in voting patterns, more of a European model where everything’s more split. And I don’t know, maybe that’s a good thing. Maybe we’ll get better government out of it. But time will tell.

Lizzie Harewood (32:41) 

Do you think that we really do have worse political leaders than we used to? (32:48) Because it seems to be a very modern phenomenon, as you said, since David Cameron, we’ve sped through political leaders, you know, Prime Ministers. Do you think there’s something else in the mix? Because I suspect there’s something within the zeitgeist that we are very intolerant of political leaders that have any sense of illegitimacy, or perhaps they say one thing and they do another, the hypocrites. And I don’t necessarily think that is worse now than it was, say, in the 70s and 80s, when we had much more stable – whether we liked the politics at the time or not – but obviously, we did have much more stable government.

Graham Nicholls (33:46) 

I think there was more – just being a little bit older – I think there was the same disenchantment. And there was the same, you know, my parents were always saying, ‘You can’t trust politician, they’re always lying, they don’t answer the questions.’ So nothing has changed in that sense. But I think society as a whole generally thought keeping the law was a good idea. And protests were quite limited and focused. There was the miners’ strike when I was growing up and various other things. But I don’t know, it didn’t feel like it was a constant kind of rebellion against government going on, which it feels a bit more like now. But I think, more than that, because society as a whole is a bit more individualistic, I think politicians are reflecting that in that there isn’t that party allegiance anymore. So although when I was growing up – I mean, I didn’t particularly like Margaret Thatcher, although kind of looking back, she’s better than I thought she was. But I was just going into adulthood – I think the time she came to power, I can’t remember. Anyway, whatever it was – she basically, until she collapsed, she wouldn’t have to worry about votes in the same way. And there would be an assumption, as James said, that her party would vote for her. So it was an exceptional and exciting thing if they wouldn’t. And obviously, when her downfall came about, there was a rebellion eventually. But she’d endured 10 years of basically people voting in her party, just an assumption that they always would vote on all the big issues – they would vote for her. And I don’t think you have that assumption anymore. And I can’t work it out other than perhaps just, as a society, we’re not so collegiate as we used to be. We’re not so into community as we used to be. So the politicians are just individual. So, although they belong to a party, their heart is not totally committed where they wouldn’t dream of voting against. Sorry, that was a bit of a long ramble. James may have better. 

James Mildred (35:47) 

No, not at all. No, I completely agree. I think the rise of expressive individualism, which obviously touches on MPs, as well as it touches on all of us, I think that means that we are less tolerant. You know, if the state isn’t doing what we think the state should be doing, and it isn’t doing things the way that we want them to be done, our reaction really is basically to throw the toys out the pram. I think also there is a much deeper and greater dependency on the state now than at any other point. And I think therefore we are consumers, aren’t we? So therefore – you see this particularly in London, I think, when people come looking for a church – the consumerist mindset is absolutely dominant. People come looking for what they can get rather than what they can give. And I think that just reflects basically, sadly, wider society. It’s all about me, my castle, my life, what I need, what I want.

James Mildred (36:41)

I also think there’s a spiritual aspect in all of this as well. I think having political stability and strong and good leadership, particularly when there are major international crises going on is a blessing and a gift from God. The absence of that in the last decade is, I believe, an act of God’s judgement. Now, some people get very nervous about that kind of language. I’ve never understood why. I mean, Romans 1:18, the wrath of God is presently revealed and it’s revealed in particular in the giving up of people and the removing of some of the restrictions over sin. And so I think the chaos that we’re seeing is a judgement. And that’s why I often encourage churches, and my own church will often pray, ‘Lord, grant us leaders of your grace and not the ones that we deserve.’ I think that there’s also an absence of what’s – older people like my parents would talk about conviction politicians, leaders who believe things, who have a philosophy that they are seeking to take Britain further into. And at least then you know where you’re going. And it’s clearer what they believe and what they don’t, because you can test things by that philosophy and what they’re doing makes some coherent sense. Whereas I think we’ve had a succession of leaders who just seem to kind of blow between sort of lefty and righty and it’s very driven by focus groups, it’s very driven by polling. 

James Mildred (38:09)

And I also think that the change in 24-hour media has had a massive impact. The immediacy with which we get instant updates. Classic example, the big, big drama yesterday [12 May 2026] around Keir Starmer – and the media were having the best day. They were loving it – this sheer volume of speculation and, ‘Oh, it’s just like John Major in 1996 – put up or shut up!’ And it’s this and it’s that. And, oh, actually, who knows what’s going on? And that’s because they’re getting all these people, from civil servants to special advisors, on the phone to them, WhatsAppping them information. And of course, they don’t actually know what’s going on. But I think that social media has intensified the ability that we have to get snapshots of our politics. And it just makes our politics look a whole lot more messy and more complicated and more convoluted. And so, yeah, I think you’ve got all these factors, to be honest with you, that’s not going to end anytime soon.

Graham Nicholls (39:06)

Well, so when we pray – as we wrap up – when we pray, because, from 1 Timothy 2 and so forth, you’re saying churches should be praying. And yeah, when we teach, when we encourage, what should we be praying for and encouraging in our churches in this mess?

James Mildred (39:26) 

Yeah, I think it’s right to pray for the prime minister and for the cabinet, to pray that they would govern wisely. I think it’s right to pray that the freedom that we have to proclaim the gospel is protected, but that if it is taken away, that we are faithful and obedient to the command to declare Christ. I think it is good to pray for brothers and sisters who are working in politics, thinking particularly of Christian MPs or Christian members of the House of Lords. There’s a lot more Christians in the House of Lords than in the House of Commons. I think it is appropriate to pray that they would be faithful to Christ. I actually think even more broadly than that, that the Lord would be kind to our own elected MP in our own area because the demands of the job are absolutely enormous. Now, some people like to focus on, ‘Well, it’s a privilege and they get paid a lot of money and blah, blah, blah.’ And that is true. I’m not denying that, but I’ve seen firsthand the toll that being a public servant, being an MP can have on family life, for example. So I think praying for God’s protection over your local MP is another really good thing to do. 

James Mildred (40:39)

And ultimately – and this is what I keep coming back to, for all the work I do with CARE – my conviction is that the work of the local church is of just a different magnitude and order altogether, because it’s the church that is the centre of God’s operations on earth, and it is the church that is the manifold wisdom of God on display. So I think, as part of praying for rulers, prayfor gospel growth, because ultimately the only way that we’re going to see genuine transformation of any kind is going to be driven by that, bottom up. I think this has been a big change that hopefully more and more Christians will realise – that, in the past, if you wanted to change a country, you would try and stuff parliament with Christians and hope they pass good laws. But I think nowadays in this completely different political context, there is a wisdom in going, actually, change does come from the bottom up. So they’re just some of the ways, and that doesn’t even touch on getting into specifically praying about a dedicated issue. Again, just one example, even just something as simple as the rising cost of living, you know, why wouldn’t we pray that there would be help given to those who need it most? I don’t think that’s an overly partisan prayer when God has a heart for those who are poor. So yeah, just a few ideas.

Lizzie Harewood (42:04) 

Can I ask a slightly awkward question at this point? I know we’re going to wrap up, don’t worry, Graham. Do you think we should be praying and seeking that there is still, in our nation, that public or established recognition of Christianity? Do you think that’s something that we, as the church, need to now just abandon? Because actually, it’s not something that is seeming to have spiritual or real real world implications. We’re not seeing Christians in that established part of public life really having any impact whatsoever.

James Mildred (42:43) 

Or are we? I probably changed my mind a bit on this. I think if you’d asked me this a year ago, I would have said no, absolutely not. I’m a non-conformist: state, church – separate. I think I still believe that it’s wrong that only the bishops are in the House of Lords. But that’s because I fundamentally don’t agree with having a state church. However, I do believe in Christian influence in society and a Christian influence in politics. And so I think it is a blessing when Christianity is seen and observed in the institutions of our country. And for example, the habit of prayers in parliament, the regular rhythm of services that take place in the chapel crypt, the fact that Westminster itself is so dominated by Christian iconography. I think these are good things, helpful things. But I also would just say it’s a preference of mine rather than a sort of conviction that those things must remain. So I think it’s fine to pray that we would see that heritage respected and that it would be preserved. I would just counsel that, if it is removed, that as a Christian, as a non-conformist, I can cope with that. If that makes sense – I’m not going to panic and think, ‘Oh gosh, now they’ve removed the mural of Moses and the Ten Commandments. What another sign of how far we’ve departed from our Christian heritage!’ I just think, whoa, whoa, whoa, dial it down. It’s great that it’s there. I pray that God uses it to convict, to convert even. But also, I can cope. Not just cope – just convictionally, it wouldn’t trouble me as much if it was removed. Does that make sense? It’s a complete cop-out, but that’s where I’ve landed at the moment.

Lizzie Harewood (44:41) 

I think I come at it – obviously with an education hat on – that we have the Church of England, which obviously is the established church and also is one of the biggest sole provider of education in the country. So therefore it still has, in theory, a significant impact on the children, the citizens that are going through its schools, etc. But when we see the spiritual output, it really doesn’t much – although the National Secular Society would like to say that all Church of England schools are indoctrinating our children, when in reality they’re really not.

Graham Nicholls (45:32) 

It means you’ve got the piping – the infrastructure for a lot of Christian influence. And I think what James, in a way, is saying is it’d be a shame to throw away all that infrastructure, even though it’s not being used very well at the moment. If all of those things were working really well – the sermons in Parliament and Church of England schools and everything – if they were all being very Christian, that would be an amazing influence.

Lizzie Harewood (45:57) 

Yes, as they once were.

Graham Nicholls (46:01) 

So I think throwing away the infrastructure just for the sake of being a non-conformist would be rather churlish.

James Mildred (46:08) 

Totally. I think that’s exactly right. And just, if I may, I mean, I think actually this is a really important part of responding well to something like populism and Christian nationalism. It is the old connect and challenge again. It’s what Paul does in 1 Corinthians 1, where he says, the cross is the wisdom of God for the Greeks and the power of God for the Jews. And he understands how those cultures think, and he connects the cross in slightly different ways. And I think it’s the same with Christian nationalism. I think there’s so much about Christian nationalism and that brand of political theology that I can connect with. I really can. And so I want to just be wise about how I talk about that without throwing everything out and saying, ‘Oh, this is awful and it’s toxic.’ It’s way more nuanced and complicated than that.

Graham Nicholls (47:01)

Brilliant. You can find more about CARE at care.org.uk. And thank you very much, James. Really appreciate having you on. Thank you.

James Mildred (47:11)

Thank you.