Churches may not be so big on society after all

This really interesting piece from last week's Guardian deserves some close reading.

"The Big Society" remains a nebulous concept but as it slowly takes shape, some Christian groups have been joining the conversation. The Church of England in particular has started to put some flesh on the bones of what this might look like.  But is this driven by the motives that Riazat Butt suggests?
Christian leaders have welcomed David Cameron's concept of a big society, seeing it as a way to re-establish their place in society.

I can well believe that there are people who think exactly this: a chance for the church to regain its lost status as lynchpin of British society and doorkeeper of the way to social assistance. Part of me even warms to the idea, thinking that perhaps this might help to reverse the trend of secularisation and the marginalisation of Christianity in public debate.

But to "re-establish our place in society" is not a noble goal. The only possible reason for such an aim would be to make a grab for power, prestige and control over people's lives. The established church had a measure of these things in the past, and thank God, those days are gone. A church with a "place in society" is a church that would find it difficult to follow in the footsteps of the Son of Man. Better to have a "place" nearer where we are now, lurking on the fringe of power rather than stalking its corridors, influencing rather than ruling, and getting on with the job of loving our neighbour whether the politicians realise it or not.  With the loss of status comes the freedom from messy motives.

Which leads us to this line, from the same article:
Pickles's warning may dampen the enthusiasm – and restrict the extent – of churches' participation.
Could it be true that the church will pull back from the Big Society when it realises there isn't any cash on offer? Perish the thought. But if that was our motive then let's knock that on the head too.  At least it would mean we wouldn't be doing the Government's dirty work (Lesley gets cross at the idea).  The Christian church is called to meet people in their need because that is what Christ does. Any other reason is going to lead us into very murky waters.

Comments

Pam Smith said…
You've hit the nail on the head again Charlie. I've questioned my own discomfort about hearing church leaders 'welcoming' the idea of Big Society and I think it is that undercurrent of self interest that has made me feel wary.

It's one thing to work in partnership with government, local or national, to provide for people, it's another thing to want to be identified with a party political policy because it puts us in a position of power an influence.

I'm sure those who applauded Big Society on behalf of the church did so from the best of motives, but to me this is an example of how politics and religion should NOT mix.
December 9, 2010 at 2:20 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Delia Knox - Miracles and healing, cynicism or wonder?

Today the story of Delia Knox has jumped out of Christian subculture into the mainstream UK media, with this story on the Daily Mail website. Knox is filmed leaving her wheelchair after being prayed for at the Bay of the Holy Spirit Revival in Mobile, Alabama. Watch the 13 minute video embedded there, if you can. Most people will have one of two reactions to this: either you will be deeply moved, or you will find yourself overwhelmingly cynical about the whole thing. The second of the two seems to be the reaction of choice for Mail Online readers, who queue in droves in the comments section to pour scorn on the whole thing. Why are people sceptical about spiritual and miraculous healing? Mostly because they simply don't believe it. The prevailing secular atheist worldview has no slot available for this kind of thing - it simply doesn't happen (although a more thoughtful and informed atheist might allow for some kind of psychosomatic factor in healing). But even among those w...
Read more

let the vicar have a day off

I began writing this on Tuesday, my usual day off. Not normally a day when I would be hunched over the keyboard, but this week I had the time because I'm luxuriating in a whole week off. A perfectly usual experience, except in the case of vicars, when the idea of a "week off" becomes quite complex and problematic. Last week on Twitter I intercepted someone's tweet who had spotted a clergy friend who was enjoying an entertaining day out. His reply was along the lines of "blimey, what it is to be a vicar and live the life of Riley" etc. I have no complaint against this person, who is a good guy and obviously meant no harm. It was just a variant on the age-old witticism that every parish priest hears on a more or less weekly basis, "of course you only work on Sundays, don't you?" There are a few versions of this, my personal favourite being "not another holiday?" if one takes leave at any time within about a year of having previously d...
Read more

lessons from the Cornwall B&B case

Comment is called for on the judgement in the case of Peter and Hazelmary Bull , because it is a significant one, and because of the Cornish connection. While some of the responses have been predictable and stereotyped, most commentators have recognised that Judge Andrew Rutherford has treated the Bulls with respect, even though he has found against them. The case turned on the principle that Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy, as civil partners, were entitled to the same rights under law as a married couple. This meant that the Bull's argument that they would equally discriminate against an unmarried heterosexual couple was not accepted, because Hall and Preddy were, for the purposes of this case, married. This is a tricky one. The Bulls didn't really have a strong case, but it's difficult not to have sympathy for them. They come across in the media as a harmless couple just doing what seems right to them. It's also hard to shake off the sneaking suspicion that they have be...
Read more