Understanding the ‘centre’ in British religion A contested space

Religion in Britain (2015) The final chapter: ‘Religion and Modernity Continued’ This summarizes the current situation regarding religion in Britain before embarking on the theoretical implications that follow Concentrating on the first of these, the questions to ask: If twenty-first century Britain is no longer Christian, what is it? Is it secular? Is it diverse? Is it spiritual? Or is it simply indifferent? All of the above

Questions and answers Questions, however, are easier than answers in that every statement requires qualification: ‘Britain is markedly more secular than it used to be, but by no means totally so; it is also more diverse, but unevenly – the regional variations are considerable. Indifference, moreover, interweaves with unattached belief on the one hand, and more articulate versions of the secular on the other, remembering that each of these elements depends on the others.’

A possible summary 1 The centre of British society is gradually shifting away from Christianity, but remains deeply coloured by it New forms of accommodation are beginning to evolve, which are more likely to be secular than religious in nature e.g. the human rights discourse Within these new formulations, engaged Christians are likely to become one minority amongst others

A possible summary 2 Leading to a hierarchy of minorities, one of which finds expression in an established church The weight of history makes a difference – a penumbra remains around the C of E but it getting smaller Further and interrelated questions follow from this: how much has changed? at which point or points did this happen? and how can we disentangle perception from reality?

The answers vary The 1960s (Callum Brown); the 1980s (Linda Woodhead) Prospect and retrospect – earlier predictions have turned out to be wrong The gainers and losers are not as we expected in terms of style (cerebral versus experiential), engagement (liberal versus conservative), and locality (urban versus rural) Scotland and Wales in this context London – unexpected gains. Why?

Digging deeper Lying behind my own thinking – a more searching enquiry a sociological awareness that whoever holds the middle ground possesses a particular kind of legitimacy – with respect to religion as in so much else The focus of my work over twenty years – two-fold: concentrating (a) on the middle ground itself and (b) on finding concepts that help our understanding of this believing without belonging; vicarious religion Abby Day – believing in belonging

Setting this in context The broader framework Understanding religion in modern Britain [Europe] – the factors to take into account: cultural heritage the ‘old model’ (a public utility) a shift from obligation to consumption (an incipient market) new arrivals secular alternatives Europe – an exceptional/distinctive case

Cultural heritage Religion – one factor amongst others (Greek rationalism and Roman organization) in the making of modern Europe think about time and space Time – calendars, seasons, festivals, holidays, weeks and weekends Space – the physical and cultural environment; a familiar, taken-for-granted skyline State churches or their successors

The old model The parochial structure – an (expensive) public utility Stable (enduring) or static (incapable of change) What should be preserved? What is expendable? A European/Christendom question, rather than an English/ Welsh one Prompting my thinking in terms of ‘believing without belonging’ and ‘vicarious religion’ the pros and cons of each imaginative sociology

Researching vicarious religion Imaginative sociology absence as well as presence what happens if you take something away revealing the ‘implicit’ death and disasters buildings and liturgy Examples: Ian Wallis ‘Awakenings’; military chaplains Generational change (again a cross reference to Abby Day’s work)

From obligation to consumption From imaginative sociology to imaginative ministry Making it worth the while of an individual to think carefully about the meaning of life, to discover the place of religion (the spiritual) in this, and – possibly – to attend a place of worship: which one? What succeeds and what doesn’t? the cathedral and the charismatic church the parish versus fresh expressions; traditional versus innovative avoiding binaries; crossing boundaries

Introducing the spiritual Vincett and Woodhead (2009) include the following in their summary of this very varied field: inner, subjective, and ineffable experience; the individual as the final arbiter of spiritual truth; holism and relationality; immanence rather than transcendence; seeking and openness A change in substance or a change in vocabulary? perception or reality? These qualities are found inside as well as outside the churches

Estimates of size Active, committed, regular participants: around 2-5% of the population Adherence/affiliation (i.e. those claiming to be ‘spiritual but not religious’): 10-20% Agreement with beliefs characteristic of spirituality – belief in ‘some sort of spirit or life force’ or ‘God as something within each person rather than something out there’: between 20 and 40%

Conversely... The numbers on the ‘any other religion’ line on the 2011 Census form were noticeably small evidence here (i.e. in the list of entries) for the fragmentation of the religious sphere, but not of a shift from the religious to the spiritual Overall – what is the significance of the spiritual as opposed to the religious in terms of the middle ground? GD – the continuities are as important as the shifts in vocabulary

In parenthesis The spiritual in public life – institutional policy statements Does this represent a genuine commitment to inclusive and holistic principles of care or is this an awkward proxy for ‘religion’ – i.e. an attempt to avoid the (supposedly) negative connotations of the latter ? An ‘awkward’ proxy: it is often the case that neither concept (religious or spiritual) is properly understood leading to manifest confusions when the policy in question is put into practice

Secular reactions A third option 2011 Census – a marked rise in the non-religion category What does this mean? unspecified indifference, a dislike of particular forms of religiousness, or – at the extreme – an articulate disdain for religion as such rather more positive: a reasoned commitment to secular or humanist values, recognizing that this in turn takes different forms

Clarifications Distinguishing the secular, secularization, secularity and secularism This is a field in which ideological judgements abound Lois Lee (forthcoming) a shift from the ‘hollowly secular’ to the ‘substantively nonreligious’; the significance of lived (non)religion Linda Woodhead the fuzzy nones (or fuzzy infidelity) – some of whom really do believe without belonging

Revisiting the initial summary A continuum which moves from a strong commitment to the religious at one end to an equally strong commitment to the secular, or to no religion at the other Between the two are various shades of grey, bearing in mind the added complication of the ‘spiritual’ is this or is it not religious? Indeed the more that you look, the more complicated the analysis becomes

A complex continuum 1 Those who cluster towards the highly committed end of the spectrum may be strong adherents of very different faith communities they may in fact be opposed to each other, although not necessarily so Those at the other, as we have seen, embrace a wide range of options, among which New Atheism is a small but vocal minority the alter-ego of creationism (the misuse of science)

A complex continuum 2 Those in the middle may be there for different reasons Nominal Christians are not a homogeneous category (Day 2011, Woodhead 2013) note in particular Day’s natal, ethnic and aspirational Christians note also that some nominals are Christian as opposed to secular; others are Christian as opposed to Muslim; and yet others are (effectively) nothing at all – the implications vary accordingly

Some tentative conclusions The middle ground is still the most interesting place to look Culturally it remains Christian; it is less so in terms of commitment, bearing in mind that circumstances alter cases I am less convinced by the spiritual except in the most general sense (an awkward proxy for religion) The secular expands in terms of influence, but unless it can find a way of dealing with the seriously religious it is unlikely to endure

Has secularism failed? Rowan Williams (2012) – the dangers: secularism fails if it excludes an important dimension of human living from the argument, thus impoverishing public debate as a whole a collusion between ‘victorious secularism’ and violent forms of religiousness, in that the former provokes a counter claim: secularist certainties stand off against religiously controlled ones revealing layers of misunderstanding on both sides