Skip to main content

Giving aid - in the name of God - or not?

Like many people did when this crisis started I joined my local mutual aid group. I got a load of leaflets with my name and phone number on and I posted them through the doors of a couple of streets (working with others in the group to make sure every street in our neighbourhood was covered).

I spent an hour posting them through letter boxes, talked to one neighbour in person (from a distance) and I knew I had done my bit.

In fact I've only been called upon to collect someone's prescription once. So it's all been very easy, but it's good to know that these leaflets have gone out (I think I'm right to say) to every home in Canton and Riverside.

Then recently I saw another leaflet that someone had taken a picture of and posted on Facebook. This was a very similar leaflet written by a local church, saying much the same. The church (as far as I know) hadn't coordinated with the local mutual aid group, but had taken it upon themselves to do it independently. But the person who had posted the picture was very appreciative and said "look, isn't this nice?"

And it is nice.... but... it brings some questions up, doesn't it? When I posted leaflets through doors I wasn't doing it in the name of my faith. I didn't say that I was a person of faith or a minister, I just said I was a neighbour and could help. I'm sure everyone was appreciative, but no one thought, "oh look, here's faith in action".

They did think that about the leaflet from the church, but I can't help feeling a bit resentful that this church wasn't coordinating with what was already happening. I mean, maybe if everyone offers help, that's not a bad thing? If people get two different leaflets through their door, that's not a terrible thing, but it does display a certain kind of attitude of some churches. Churches want to get into the community and "do good" but if they do it without first finding out what's already going on it can look a bit... arrogant, patronising, colonial.

Why do churches need to do things as churches? Why not work in partnership with other community groups? That's seems the better thing to do, and yet I admit it probably means people don't realise volunteers or projects are from a faith perspective, and so there's no good PR for churches. Churches that do their own thing as churches, as explicit faith projects probably are more likely to grow.

I do think faith groups do have unique and important things they can contribute. If that church put a leaflet through every household in Canton saying "let us know of any things you want us to pray for" I'd have less to object to, but then that leaflet would probably be less universally welcomed in homes.

I've spent two years in Cardiff not doing things in the name of faith, because I believe in partnership and solidarity. I believe in finding out what's already going on, and joining in. But I have to admit that means my ministry is still invisible to the vast majority of people in my community. Perhaps that's partly about there being a time and season for everything. I'm moving into a time when I want to be more explicitly spiritual. But I'm starting from an attitude of solidarity and partnership.

There's a tension here, I feel. What do you think? Should faith groups do things explicitly as faith groups so that they can get the good publicity, or should they work in partnership and risk becoming invisible?


Popular posts from this blog

From liberalism to radicalism

I've been reflecting recently on the journey I've been making from liberalism to radicalism, and how I'm beginning to see it as a necessary evolution if you're not going to get stuck in a kind of immature liberalism that fails to serve both you and the world. By liberalism I mean ideas and movements that emphasise personal freedom and not being restricted by the patterns of the past. By radicalism I mean ideas and movements that emphasise justice, solidarity, and liberation from oppression. Yes, I'm using broad categories here. Let me give an example. Let's talk about sexual liberation in a Western context for example. We can talk about women getting more agency over their bodies; gay and bi people being able to have sex with one another and marry one another; we can talk about the work of overcoming shame around sexuality. All of that is liberalism. It's good stuff. It's still ongoing. So we might ask the question "where next for sexu

Am I an activist?

  I remember being at some protest outside the Senedd once, and someone introduced me to someone else, and said, "Stephen is an activist." I remember thinking - am I? I don't know. What does it mean to be an activist? Who gets to use that title? Am I an activist because I turn up at a few protests? Or do I have to be one them organising the protest to be an activist? Do I have to lead? Do I have to do the organisational work to be an activist? Because the truth is that since I moved to Cardiff I have kept myself at the periphery of a lot of activist groups. I go to meetings, I hear about things, I turn up at protests, but I have rarely got really fully involved. Why is that? It's not for the reason that I don't have time. I do, in fact. But often I sit in these meetings and protests and think "Is this effective? Is it worthwhile? Is it going to produce something at the end of it all that is worth the effort?" I suppose, coming from the world of church I

LOST and theology: who are the good guys?

***Spoiler alert*** I'm continuing some theological/philosophical reflections while re-watching the series LOST. One of the recurring themes in LOST is the idea of the "good guys" and the "bad guys." We start the series assuming the survivors (who are the main characters) are the "good guys" and the mysterious "Others" are definitely bad guys. But at the end of series 2 one of the main characters asks the Others, "Who are  you people?" and they answer, in an extremely disturbing way, "We're the good guys." The series develops with a number of different factions appearing, "the people from the freighter" "the DHARMA initiative" as well as divisions among the original survivors. The question remains among all these complicated happenings "who really are the good guys?" I think one of the most significant lines in the series is an episode when Hurley is having a conversation with