Over the past twelve months, restrictions on our activities have been changed by the Government more often than we might care to remember. Some of those rules might now seem like something from the dim and distant past (don’t forget the dark days when you couldn’t sit on a bench), while others remain in place as ongoing issues. Acts of worship that we could physically attend were a welcome relief for many people in the summer of 2020, but the second lockdown brought some of these activities to a halt.
A restart of church services took place, coinciding with the Prime Minister’s encouragement for Christmas to be enjoyed with the caveat that it was ‘the season to be jolly careful’. Mr Johnson’s enthusiasm for all the trimmings met with criticism, and soon the unavoidable decision for a new lockdown was confirmed. Schools, cafes, pubs and shops all closed. We all stayed at home. And yet, in the latest lockdown of 2021 the expected decision from Whitehall to close places of worship never came.
The Church of England made this dualistic statement; “The Government has asked us to stay at home to save lives and protect the NHS. Under the current regulations the Government has permitted public worship to continue, if it is safe to do so”. Some churches felt that this advice was clear enough to encourage a regular meeting, while others chose to close their physical spaces for everything except private prayer. The Muslim Council of Britain’s advice went further, stating that “if trustees are not confident… they should temporarily suspend their gatherings”. Many temples, mosques and chapels are closed entirely, while some without their own buildings haven’t met in person since March last year.
In general, the religious communities of England seem pleased to have the ability to make their own decisions around this situation. After all, a city centre premises that welcomes worshippers in their thousands is in quite a different position to a village chapel with a congregation of ten. But there are some interesting questions to ask about how and why we’re in this position.
The UK has a Conservative Government, and England doesn’t yet have its own assembly to give a counter view. English conservatism in the 21st century largely holds a neo-liberal standpoint. In short, this means that we can do what we want economically, socially, and ecologically (amongst other things) without very much government restraint or support. The belief of the philosophy is that if these choices are well made and the following actions are well executed, they have the potential to result in high achievement. When boiled down, these actions are usually stimulated by the hope of making lots of money. It also pivots on the reduction of Government support. In essence, “good luck – you’re on your own”. Our current cabinet and the Conservative Party includes many politicians who subscribe to this neo-liberalism that came to prominence when Margaret Thatcher was in charge. Thatcher summed up this approach, pronouncing that “there is no such thing as society”. The quote continued “there are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours”.
Margaret Thatcher’s biggest critics use that quote to blame her for the inequality that exists in the UK today. Her encouragement to look after our neighbours doesn’t match the actions of the Government then or now. An acceptance to look after our neighbours probably involves a nuance not easily applied to the neo-liberalist approach so instead conservativism resorts to a sink or swim mentality. If we throw people in at the deep end, they have a chance of learning quickly and thriving. The possibility of a potential drowning isn’t always mentioned in political manifestos. So the leaders of the mosque, church, temple, chapel and meeting room can make their own decisions about gathering, enabled by the free choices that allow us to do or die.
Since the Brexit referendum, England has been working hard to redefine and reassert itself. The blue flags with gold stars are lowered and St George and the Union flags are raised. The bananas are wonky. The crisps are bigger than a human ear. Channel Four will even have Test Match Cricket back on our terrestrial screens again. And in spite of this pandemic, our churches will be open. Our Government’s attitudes about our places of worship have been a useful mechanism to make a wider statement about survival. Margaret Thatcher was the daughter of a Methodist Local Preacher who was committed to hard work, encouraged by both the Protestant work ethic espoused by his chapel and his Conservative Party’s belief in hard work bringing its own rewards. To separate these two attitudes is beyond what can be done in this article. But a cabinet influenced by Thatcherism has encouraged immigration for jobs by people who may well bring a commitment to religion with them. Motivation has therefore become a thread that runs between three significant parts of English society. Conservative values that promote hard work, Protestant people committed to work as an expression of faith and immigrant communities establishing themselves economically, socially and religiously through graft.
So the doors of many of our churches, mosques, temples and chapels are flung wide and everyone is happy as long as we’re “jolly careful”. We’ve made our individual choices and we’ll take our chances. Except that maybe, just maybe, individualism can’t be the philosophy that underpins the communities that gather in the name of God.
Throughout Jesus’ life, he showed care and compassion for the many people he encountered. He met and ate with thieves, fraudsters, those from despised ethnic groups and even the armed oppressors of his nation. Spending time with these groups would have been frowned on by the religious elite of the day. Jesus didn’t give any sign of caring what those leaders said, instead working hard to show love for others. A few years later, St Paul wrote a letter to the group of Christians in Galatia and commanded them to “carry each other’s burdens”. Loving your neighbour was not an afterthought, it was at the forefront of the actions of Jesus and his followers.
Jesus was once asked this - “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
So we find ourselves in a curious position. The churches are encouraged to open by a Government, so positioned because of their neo-liberalism. And yet the neo-liberal view is one directly opposed to the teachings and life of Jesus, the foundation stone upon which the church is built. This is an irony that often occurs in England, this year being no different. We defend our status as a Christian nation, while persecuting Christianity when it operates outside of the expectations deemed acceptable, as shown below.
Lockdown has given plenty of examples of this attitude. Perhaps this happened most strikingly in the case of Daniel Mateola, pastor of Kingdom Faith Ministries International Church in Milton Keynes. The Guardian reported that the police twice descended on Mateola, once during an online broadcast from his church and then again four days later at his home. The church was operating within the legal guidelines, and despite officers being made aware of this at the first encounter, they returned to inform the pastor that he would be prosecuted. Ultimately, the Chief of Thames Valley Police responded to say “I would like to apologise for the distress I know this is likely to have caused”. The distress felt by us when we read that article will probably be based on the belief that a white vicar in a parish church would be trusted to know the lockdown rules in a way that a black pastor was not.
For the Conservative Government as well as large swathes of wider society, there is a general assumption that the Conservative Government are supportive of the Church. In truth, this means that they support a very condensed idea of what they believe church to be. It looks like a country parson on a bicycle, with an ancient building and a faithful and obedient congregation. The sermons offer platitudes, and the focus of their worship is the summer fete. The awful truth for those beholden to the image of such an idyll is that the church in England believes in life challenging and world changing good news. This gospel of Jesus Christ insists that one person’s burdens are all of our burdens. There is a commitment to community in the very broadest sense. And there is knowledge that all people are loved equally by God. The neo-liberalist assumptions that currently underpin how this nation is run are an anathema to these universe transforming beliefs. John the Evangelist, another New Testament writer sums it up best in these words - “Dear friends, let’s love each other, because love is from God, and everyone who loves is born from God and knows God. The person who doesn’t love does not know God, because God is love”.
Another great article Jon ! You should definitely do a pod cast and interview people.
Really good, thanks Jon. Lots of agreement here! Would you say that neo-liberalism was past of the old Christendom stuff, wrapped with colonialism, capitalism, and domination thinking or do you think that it's an interaction of post-modernism and post-Christendom western world situation, where the individual seems to take precedence (unlike many other parts of the world)... Or maybe a mix!