The Big Society and the church

The church- and I suspect faith groups in general- have been trying to work out what they make of teh 'Big Society' ever since it was announced.  As I said before, there has mostly been a cautious welcome along with some concern about what it could be used for.


For many churches or organisations, initial reaction has been positive- a chance to work with the community and reach a greater number of people, to raise the profile of work the already do by linking it under the 'Big Society' label, maybe even the hope of more money for what they do- although that's looking less and less likely.  None of these are bad things.  Churches do some great work with their local and national communities, and are sometimes underrecognised or treated with suspicion.

What will be hard for the church is not to get pushed into filling all the gaps left by the government's programme of cuts.  While the government are mostly saying that the cuts are driven by a need to reduce the deficit rather than by ideology (whether you believe that or not), it does seem that people will be more dependant on voluntary organisations for help previously given by the government.  I'm wary of the church (or any faith organisation) being seen to take on work formerly done by the government- it's laying ourselves open to charges of favouritism and exploiting those we seek to help.  

The people who are worst off are also the people who the church has a duty not to forget.  I suspect that if the government, local or national, is doing less churches and other groups will step in to try to help.  But without the resources, the connections, the people with training, expertise and experience there will be much they cannot do and many gaps they cannot fill.  What is supposed to happen then, with the state safety net if not removed then so relaxed and unrepaired that it is unable to help?  I don't like to think. 

Lurking somewhere in the Conservative- and indeed in the British- psyche is the suspicion that if people are in trouble it is their own fault- that their own actions, directly or indirectly, have got them there and so they 'deserve' the trouble they are in.  Perhaps they're sometimes right (liberal friends gasp) although it's pretty hard to see how, for example, someone who's unable to work because of a disability becomes less entitled to state help because they still have the disability a certain length of time.  But I don't think that's either an answer or a reason to leave people starving and freezing to death on the streets, or to clog up hospitals with those who haven't got a home and family to go to.  That seems to me unworthy of the country we like to think we are.