ResPublica recently hosted a talk by Robert Putnam, the Harvard
professor who is author of Bowling Alone and now co-author, with David
Campbell of the University of Notre Dame, of American Grace. American
Grace, describes the impact that going to church, synagogue, mosque or
temple has on society.
This is a very serious, scholarly, tome of over 600 pages, based on
respected social surveys. It has a startling conclusion, that those who
go to church regularly are two or three times ‘nicer’ than those who do
not go, where ‘nicer’ is a short-hand term for more likely to give time,
talents and money to good causes. This is after all adjustments have
been made for other factors such as age, gender, race, class, wealth. It
holds true even for giving to, or volunteering for, secular causes.
That is to say, a regular church-goer is two or three times more likely
than a non-church-goer to give money and their own time even to a
secular charity.
The authors do not seem to think that this is to do with beliefs so
much as to having ‘church friends’. This point is illustrated by their
interest in people who do not believe in God but who go to church just
as regularly as those who do, for instance because their spouse is a
believer. Such a person will acquire ‘church friends’ and will similarly
be more likely than those who do not go to church to become involved in
philanthropy and volunteering.
The American Grace authors have social survey data for the UK as well
as the USA and believe that their findings hold true across the
Atlantic. ‘Church’ is shorthand for faith communities so the same
applies to people of other faiths who go to their synagogues, mosques or
temples.
The distinguished authors say they cannot tell from their data why
the conclusions follow. The significance is so great, however,
especially in the light of the Big Society debates, that the quest for
the causal link is fast becoming the holy grail of modern political and
social science.
When challenged by Phillip Blond and others at the ResPublica talk in
St Martin’s in the Fields as to why people of faith make such a
difference to their societies, Robert Putnam said he does not know the
answer, that he is not a theologian. That begs the question whether
theology or any particular discipline is the source of answers. So
social scientists and others are on a mission to find a common
denominator in church-goers but that is perhaps misguided. Indeed, it
could be that being engaged in religious communities is about learning
to cope with diverse characters, rather than about all thinking alike.
ResPublica deserves credit for highlighting the overlapping spheres
of interest in these questions from the worlds of politics and of faith
communities. When the Archbishop of Canterbury was guest-editing the New
Statesman earlier this month, the Archbishop of Westminster was also
talking about the Big Society but at the Caritas Network conference of
Catholic charities, offering some perceptive insights arising from a
process of sustained consultation and engagement. He said that he ‘was
struck by the result of the poll which Edward Stourton conducted at our
conference on 6 April in London when he asked all those present whether
or not they thought the “Big Society” was a cover for cuts. The
overwhelming majority said no. They felt there was a genuine moral
agenda here. Furthermore a number of the MPs who were present – in
particular some from the Labour Party – also made clear that the moral
motivation behind what David Cameron has advocated is something they
supported.’ Yet he was not uncritical of the government’s approach
because you do not automatically grow a bigger-hearted society by simply
reducing the size of the state.
Then the Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP, Secretary of State for Communities
and Local Government, spoke about Faith and Social Action a week later
in Westminster Central Hall at a Cinnamon Network meeting. He was
positive but used an unfortunate turn of phrase at the crucial point of
his speech when he said that, ‘We want to tap into that secular side of
your work’. Even though that might be politicians’ shorthand and even
though he went on immediately to say, ‘into your huge potential to do
good’, his phrase ‘tap into’ struck a jarring note.
My own view is that the American Grace phenomenon, of church-goers
giving so much more of themselves to others, has something to do with at
least four factors: with beliefs, the ethos of church communities, the
example of others in those communities, especially families, and the
experience of being asked to get more involved.
On the 4th of July, America's Independence Day, it seems apposite to
consider an American example of transforming grace. The movie, The Blind
Side, for which Sandra Bullock won the best actress Oscar last year, is
based on the true life story of Michael Oher becoming a part of the
Tuohy family. He was a teenage African-American boy, fending for
himself. They were a white conservative Christian family in the South.
Our prejudices might include that it would not work out (whereas it did)
or that secular, liberal and politically correct Hollywood would not
make the movie (whereas again it did). The Tuohys are Good Samaritans.
They saw Michael walking in torrential rain, wearing only shorts and a
t-shirt, and stopped to give him a ride. They eventually adopted
Michael, who turned his life around and has become a professional
American footballer.
The Tuohys have now written their own book, In a Heartbeat, which
explains what I would call their American Grace. Incidentally, they also
explain the title of the movie which comes from ‘the uniquely valuable
role Michael plays on the field. At left tackle, he protects the
quarterback’s most vulnerable spot, his “blind side”. We all have to
protect each other better, individually.’
The parents, Leigh Anne and Sean, were brought up as Christians.
Leigh Anne was Baptist. Sean was Catholic. As a young married couple in
Memphis, they attended the ‘nondenominational Central Church led by
Jimmy Latimer, the pastor who had married us’, whose sermons affected
them. They tithed, that is to say, they committed to giving away, a
tenth of their income. Then they helped to found ‘one of the
fastest-growing congregations in Memphis, Grace Evangelical’. They
evolved their own way of life based on St Paul’s message that ‘God loves
a cheerful giver’. They decided to ‘do small things with great love’.
In terms of answering the question why church-goers create so much
social capital, there is here an inspirational example of belief.
It is also about the example of their own upbringing and their own
church communities. It was not accidental that the Tuohys stopped when
others did not help Michael. Leigh Anne, the character played in the
movie by Sandra Bullock, explains that her own mother ‘was always
mothering strangers’. She had ‘a habit of looking after stray kids’. She
became a second mother to one of Leigh Anne’s friends, Liz, who has
‘passed it on ... in turn, she’s practically adopted half the city of
Memphis’. Leigh Anne explains that, ‘Liz has a contagious passion to
better kids’ lives’ and that, ‘Liz borrowed a quality from my mother:
she takes each kid personally’.
All this explains why the Tuohys did something, they stopped to help,
when others just walked or drove past Michael: ‘Thousands of people
failed to notice Michael Oher’ even though he was hard to miss. In their
book, the Tuohy children, Collins, Sean Junior (known as SJ) and
Michael also all contribute thoughtful reflections. They share their
parents’ faith and love-in-action, explaining their stories by reference
to beliefs and example. The daughter, Collins, explained that she and
SJ were not resentful of Michael because ‘After years and years of
watching how my mom and dad treat people, it got across’ and that ‘God
puts things and people in your life for a reason’. SJ reports that,
‘When the movie came out, Collins, Michael and I put some of our money
together and gave it back to our church’. Michael says, ‘The Lord kept
his hand on me by finding the Tuohy family, my family, and bringing me
to them.’ He says, ‘I was blessed’ and he was blessed, I would add, by
American Grace.
People do not have to share the Tuohys’ beliefs or faith to be
interested in trying to understand how they exemplify American Grace.
The anti-God squad are keen to explain the failings of church people and
pride themselves in placing a high premium on facts and evidence but
how do they explain the findings of Putnam and the creation by
church-goers of this social capital? If we are trying to understand the
Big Society, the example of the Tuohys might point us towards answers to
the deeper questions prompted by American Grace. The Tuohys conclude
with a message for the Big Society: ‘Government programmes are great -
we need a safety net. But the one thing government cannot do is to look
someone in the eye and say, “I love you, I want you in my home”.'