I love my local library. (Yes, we still have a library, although before long it won't have any staff.) There was an exhibition there recently about York's refugee committe in the early to mid 20th century. It was fascinating reading about the help given to refugees fleeing from Nazi Germany in the 1930's, about factory workers who couldn't have been paid all that much themselves contributing a few pence a week to pay for a child evacuated from Germany to be cared for and educated.
It made me wonder whether society's reaction today would be towards a similar crisis. So often refugees, asylum seekers, illegal immigrants and legal migrant workers are all lumped together by the tabloid press as a seething mass of people 'coming over here taking our jobs and our houses and using our services.' It can be hard to separate the different groups and the different issues.
Today, those who come here seeking safety from persecution or violence in their homelands face many difficulties once they manage to get here, from official forms and interviews to surviving on meagre resources in a land where they may not speak the language or know anyone, and where often the public are unwelcoming. Despite the coalition government's pledge to end child detention for asylum seekers, too little has been done so far. I wonder what the factory workers who helped pay for German children's keep would make of Yarl's Wood detention centre?
But one thing that encourages me when I read stories about refugees and asylum seekers is how often a church is involved, how often it is church members leading the fight against deportation for families and individuals who have been failed by the system.
All through the Old Testament God encourages his people to care for the 'outsiders' living amongst them. Although it's easy to loose sight of this amongst the passages commanding his people not to intermarry with the surrounding tribes (in an attempt to stop them drifting into worshipping the false gods of those tribes) there were always non-Israelites living amongst God's people. Some, like the Moabite woman Ruth, even became ancestors of King David and ultimately of Jesus Christ. Jesus himself showed his concern for those who were considered 'outsiders' in his society. So it seems to me only right that the church should be active on behalf of those 'outsiders' to our society.
After all, if you had to leave Britain and ended up in a strange country, with no friends, little money and without knowing the language, wouldn't you hope someone would help you?
Friday 18 February 2011
Wednesday 16 February 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday 15 February 2011
The Big Society- as I see it
Hello there. Long time no post. Hopefully this won't continue. Anyway, for now, here's something.
The 'Big Society' is much in the news again of late. Reaction to it still ranges from 'what?' to 'isn't that what I do anyway?' to 'cutting services by stealth.' Possibly the failure to come up with an easily understandable soundbite is one of the biggest problems facing the 'Big Society.'
But the welcome from churches- identified as major players in the 'Big Society' vision- has often been cautious, and perhaps should be more cautious still. While the aim (getting people to engage more with their community and to take responsibility for what goes on there) seems to fit well with much of what churches already do and should be doing more of, as time as passed since Cameron started talking about the 'Big Society' suspicions of what might be lurking behind it have grown. While I do think that the prime minister is sincere in what he says about fostering community and volunteer-run local services being better for people than big central government; there is no doubt that this is also very convenient for his government in the midst of its' programme of cuts.
Perhaps it's ironic that this government that says it dislikes the idea of big government telling people what's good for them is in fact doing just that. The problem I have- and that I think the church is facing- is that we already do voluntary work. We know what the pitfalls are- struggles to find volunteers, unreliability, people moving away and difficulties finding people with the right skills to fill the posts, struggles to fit in enough family and leisure time as well as volunteering and actual work, struggles to find appropriate venues and, of course, finding enough money. Volunteer run services are great, I don't dispute that. But can you really rely on them to be there 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year? I'm not sure you can- or that you should.
I think my biggest problem with the 'Big Society' is not just that it's easy to use it to cover up damaging cuts in areas that the vast majority of people agree (when they bother to think about it) should actually be the business of central or local government- care for the elderly and disabled, for the homeless, for those escaping abusive relationships or with nowhere to go coming out of care, prison or hospital. I think it bothers me most that while in the nice, peaceful and fairly well-off (and mainly Tory) shires where people have enough money to contribute and families aren't working all hours of the day to make ends meet, it might just work, with some help. (Obviously these are the places that Cameron etc know-and possibly care- most about).
But in places far from London, or in council estates where those that work often work unsocial or irregular hours, and where those that don't are too depressed and discouraged to bother with abstract nouns like 'community', I think it will be a whole lot harder to get off the ground. Unfortunately, those are exactly the places that need it most.
The 'Big Society' is much in the news again of late. Reaction to it still ranges from 'what?' to 'isn't that what I do anyway?' to 'cutting services by stealth.' Possibly the failure to come up with an easily understandable soundbite is one of the biggest problems facing the 'Big Society.'
But the welcome from churches- identified as major players in the 'Big Society' vision- has often been cautious, and perhaps should be more cautious still. While the aim (getting people to engage more with their community and to take responsibility for what goes on there) seems to fit well with much of what churches already do and should be doing more of, as time as passed since Cameron started talking about the 'Big Society' suspicions of what might be lurking behind it have grown. While I do think that the prime minister is sincere in what he says about fostering community and volunteer-run local services being better for people than big central government; there is no doubt that this is also very convenient for his government in the midst of its' programme of cuts.
Perhaps it's ironic that this government that says it dislikes the idea of big government telling people what's good for them is in fact doing just that. The problem I have- and that I think the church is facing- is that we already do voluntary work. We know what the pitfalls are- struggles to find volunteers, unreliability, people moving away and difficulties finding people with the right skills to fill the posts, struggles to fit in enough family and leisure time as well as volunteering and actual work, struggles to find appropriate venues and, of course, finding enough money. Volunteer run services are great, I don't dispute that. But can you really rely on them to be there 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year? I'm not sure you can- or that you should.
I think my biggest problem with the 'Big Society' is not just that it's easy to use it to cover up damaging cuts in areas that the vast majority of people agree (when they bother to think about it) should actually be the business of central or local government- care for the elderly and disabled, for the homeless, for those escaping abusive relationships or with nowhere to go coming out of care, prison or hospital. I think it bothers me most that while in the nice, peaceful and fairly well-off (and mainly Tory) shires where people have enough money to contribute and families aren't working all hours of the day to make ends meet, it might just work, with some help. (Obviously these are the places that Cameron etc know-and possibly care- most about).
But in places far from London, or in council estates where those that work often work unsocial or irregular hours, and where those that don't are too depressed and discouraged to bother with abstract nouns like 'community', I think it will be a whole lot harder to get off the ground. Unfortunately, those are exactly the places that need it most.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)