The proximate cause for this post is the present disagreement about the government’s intended “bedroom tax” (or the “under-occupancy penalty”, depending upon your personal bias). However, what I have to say applies to pretty much every disagreement about matters of justice between liberals and conservatives and is vitally important if we’re ever to stop talking past each other. Further, it imposes a significant challenge upon the church.

The issue I wish to raise is that many questions of justice can be either prospective or retrospective. Very often the ‘right’ answer depends on which perspective is pertinent. Generally when liberals and conservatives disagree, they have different perspectives in mind.

Enough vague generalisation. Since we started with bedroom tax, I will illustrate what I mean by discussing social housing strategies. In a perfectly just economy, there would be no need for social housing – everyone would have enough. This is the kind of economy we should most desire. In an almost perfect, but more real, economy, however, there will always be people who, through circumstances beyond their control, do not have enough. This is injustice. In such cases, the law of charity demands that society as a whole help these people. Finally, in the kind of economy we actually have, people who are helped can become institutionalised and some will even take advantage of the system. So we have a very imperfect situation where people who could be doing more for themselves do not and everyone else has to make up the difference. This is another kind of injustice.

Now, before anyone howls in protest, let me say that the cost of charity will always be that it is, to some degree, an exercise in casting pearls before swine. This is simply true. Nonetheless, it behoves us to count the cost and then be charitable anyway, especially bearing in mind that many of the recipients really are deserving causes. After all, was the cross not the clearest example of this strategy? Love always costs more than it should, but love is also big enough to bear it.

The real question, then, becomes not whether we should be charitable but how we manage our charity. The conservative (speaking broadly) will view the situation prospectively – speaking of what will happen in the general case of society as a whole. The liberal, however, will view the situation retrospectively – speaking of what has happened in the particular cases of those who have fallen between the cracks.

You see this in the language used. In this BBC article, for example, those opposed to the legislation speak of a particular “153 families under-occupying two-bedroom homes”, whereas those in favour speak of the “bill for housing benefit topping £21bn a year and rising”. Neither party is incorrect. Both have very important concerns which, in an ideal society, should be addressed. And both parties think their concerns trump those of the other party.

My contention is that the prospective case (i.e. the what will happen in general) and the retrospective case (i.e. what has happened in particular) must both be addressed. But they cannot be addressed by the same thing. I think that when we are discussing general policy, then the right thing is to look at the general case. However we must never make the mistake of thinking that general policy is an iron rule that must govern every particular case and in particular cases we must always place compassion ahead of the general rule.

But this also means that two different parties are involved: the central authorities who make the general rules, and the local authorities who interact with particular people on the ground. Both need the freedom to operate on their own initiative. The trouble with conservatives is that they want to control local policy and the trouble with liberals is that they want to control central policy. However, centralised government must be free to set the general rules for society looking forwards, without particular parties with localised concerns interfering. On the other hand, centralised government is not in a position to make decisions based on compassion and charity because it does not interact with the particular people who face hardship. So local authorities must be given freedom by central government to recognise when the rules do not apply.

Now, here’s the problem: what I have just said is brilliant as a utopian ideal, but it is simply not likely to be realised. And this is where I think the church comes in. Indeed, this is where the church has often been the miracle which breaks the rules against utopian ideals. But this is also where the church very often fails to live up to its calling to be that miracle.

The reasons why the church is the answer are that the church is present in every local situation, the church is unconstrained by central government budgets and the church is built upon charity – indeed upon the charity, the charis, the free gift of grace, the incarnated Lord Jesus Christ himself. Too often we forget this. Too often we think that our provider is not God, but the state. Too often we think we hear Jesus saying, “I was hungry and thirsty and you wrote to your MP”.

Now, don’t misunderstand me, the church should also be involved in setting general policy. But we must remember to do so in the prospective mode. At the same time we must work locally in the retrospective mode. This will cost us. This will mean that the money often comes from our own pockets. This will mean that our own houses become places of refuge. And, most significantly, this will mean that we need to start living in a way which makes us available to be the incarnated grace in our communities.

I have often been struck when met at the church door by a homeless person that the local church is usually not structured to deal with homelessness. I compare this with the model of St Benedict, whose monastic communities would host anyone who came to the door at any time of the day. There is an intentional, strategic structure to a Benedictine monastery so that when the local, particular need occurs there is a community with the resources and will to respond. In contrast, our churches resemble a special interest club which is only ever present for the few hours each week when it is busy managing internal business and unable to accommodate a need from outside.

I said previously that the church is present in every locality, that it is unconstrained by resources and that it lives on charity. In truth, I think we often forget to be present. We often forget that our God is well-enough resourced to create universes. And consequently, we find ourselves struggling to believe in charity. The more I think and read and pray, the more I am coming to the conclusion that Benedict had the right of it. We need to be structuring our churches as intentional communities which live by a rule that makes sure we are local and generous.

That is really what I wanted to say about bedroom tax. But the more general principle, about prospective and retrospective justice, requires a few more words because I see this pattern everywhere. Another example is our attitude to children born out of wedlock. Prospectively, it is good and right that we desire this situation not to occur – as a matter of justice to the children and to those who would otherwise become inadvertent parents. Retrospectively it is imperative that we care both for those who accidentally find themselves pregnant and for their children. Past ages have done very well with the prospective view, but caused real harm to those who broke the taboo. The present age has resolved the past injustice, but at the same time is losing any notion of what marriage means, causing a vast social mess of broken relationships. Similar issues surround the issue of abortion. We need a society which can take both the prospective view and the retrospective view. And, once again, I think the church is well placed to motivate for the former while being the incarnated Christ in the world which picks up the pieces in the latter.