I used to go to church every week, but not any more, because I’ve got a dog now…
(Year 6 pupil, number 74, aged 11 from the University of Exeter Biblos survey 2003)

In this post takes us into the second and third chapters of Terence Copley’s book, “Indoctrination, Education and God: The struggle for the mind”. The chapters are entitled, “The Choking Cradle? Religion Under Threat in English Society” and “‘I’ve Got a Dog Now’: The Death and Life of Christianity after 1945” and take a historical and statistical trip and charts the religiosity of the British Isles in recent times. These chapters form part of investigation into Copley’s thesis that the English education system as a mirror to the English culture results in indoctrination against belief in God. For more on his thesis and what we’ve looked at so far, you might like to see the other posts in the series: “Culture, Education and the absent God”, “ASBO Generation: rebel!”, “Indoctrination, Education and God (part 1)” and “Indoctrination, Education and God (part 2)”.

In someway these chapters are scene setting and attempt to collect together – and do so quite successfully – some the historical factors that have resulted in the particular relationship that the English have with religion in general and Christianity in particular.

Copley explores if England really is a post-Christian nation and suggests that the results from various studies investigating both young people and student (as well as the public at large) have surprisingly positive attitudes towards the Bible and the person of Jesus. Although there is evidence of decline there is also evidence of growth and of the death and births of churches and movements. It is suggested that a much more appropriate label for England is post-ecclesiastical, or post-Church – a topic I think I will be writing a post on sometime soon! He will go on to look at the relationship between the decline of organised religion, on the one hand, and the burgeoning forms of spirituality, on the other in the next chapter, “Spiritual Fruits, not Religious Nuts: Replacing ‘Religion’ with ‘Spirituality’“.

Rather than to take you through the history or the statistics, both of which are quite interesting, I’m going to suggest it is well summarised by a passage in a really fun and insightful book written by a social anthropologist by the name of Kate Fox called, “Watching the English: The Hidden Rules of English Behaviour“. One of the ‘rules’ Fox highlights is the ”benign-indifference’ rule concerning religion. She says,

“We are not a nation of explicit, unequivocal atheists.  Nor are  we agnostics. Both of these imply a degree of interest in whether or not there is a deity – enough to either reject or question the notion. Most English people are just not much bothered about it…
… So although only 12 per cent , at the last count, will go so far as to call themselves atheists, I think the former Archbishop’s notion of a prevailing ‘tacit atheism’ among the English is fairly accurate. If we were real atheists, he and his Church would have something to get their teeth into, someone to argue with. As it is, we just don’t care enough.
We are not only indifferent but, worse (from the Church’s point of view), we are politely indifferent, tolerantly indifferent, benignly indifferent. We have no actual objection to God. If pushed, we even accept that He might exist – or that Something might exist, and we might well call it God, if only for the sake of peace and quiet. God is all very well, in His place, which is the church. When we are in His house – at weddings and funerals – we make all the right polite noises, as one does in people’s houses, although we find the earnestness of it all fairly ridiculous and a bit uncomfortable. Otherwise, He impinges very little on our lives or our thoughts. Other people are people are very welcome to worship Him if they choose – it’s a free country – but this is a private matter and they should keep it to themselves and not bore or embarrass the rest of us by making an unnecessary fuss about it. (There is nothing the English hate more than a fuss.)
In many other countries – America, for example – politicians and other prominent figures feel obliged to demonstrate their devoutness and invoke their deity at every opportunity. Here, they must do the exact opposite. Even to mention one’s faith would be very bad form…
… Our benign indifference remains benign only so long as the religious, of any persuasion, stay in their place and refrain from discomforting the non-practising, spiritually neutral majority with embarrassing or tedious displays of religious zeal. And any use of ‘the G-word’, unless obviously ironic or just a figure of speech (God forbid, God knows, Godforsaken, etc.) counts as such as an improper display. Earnestness of any kind makes us squirm; religious earnestness makes us deeply suspicious and decidedly twitchy.”
Kate Fox, “Watching the English: The Hidden Rules of English Behaviour“, p 355-357

On to the next post in this series > Spiritual Fruits, Not Religious Nuts >