Interested by this? Share it on social media. Join our monthly e–newsletter to keep up to date with our latest research and events. And check out our Friends Programme to find out how you can help our work.

Alice Thompson’s piece in The Times the other day mentioned that the Scientologists had literally pitched up (i.e., in a tent) at Grenfell Tower. They were offering massages and ‘healing’ (and leaflets) to those caught up in the tragedy. Apparently, they were not well received. “Everyone who’s approached them has told them to f*** off.”

From this behaviour Alice draws the lesson that ‘proselytising too strongly feels wrong’. Perhaps our Scientologist friends have been badly misunderstood? They claim that they’ve been there since the day after the fire, helping sort and transport donations, handing out water and supplying face masks. The fear, though, is that some approach a tragedy like Grenfell not to see what they can give but to see what they can get. The comparison with the attitude of the churches – and of course many ‘secular’ people who have headed to West London over the past week – could not be starker. Most went to give and to serve.

But these Scientologist antics – if that is what they are – are hardly representative of religious mission per se, and for Thompson to twin it with the Church of England’s attempt to advertise a campaign in cinemas is just daft. In the same way that there are forms of secular persuasion – dishonest advertising, for example – that transgress ethical boundaries, most religious traditions take the view that there are things that they should not do. Unlike Thompson, they don’t take this view because they think public religion is a problem to be managed but because their theologically informed understanding is that their faith should be offered to others in ways which are humble, generous, respectful, honest and free. In his apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium Pope Francis argues that “it is not by proselytism that the church grows, but by attraction”, distinguishing between “the imposition of obligations” and “to invite others to a delicious banquet”. See our report, The Problem of Proselytism, for more.

A similar set of judgements should be made around the politics of the Grenfell Tower fire. Commentators on the left have insisted that the tragedy should be seen in political context, rounding on those that claim that the tragedy ‘shouldn’t be politicised’. For the record, there is no doubt in my own mind that Grenfell invokes many political questions, including around the effects of deep cuts to local authority budgets and fire services.

But there are two kinds of politics that have turned up at Grenfell. One wants to take and one wants to give. One will try to make political capital out of human tragedy, and one will spend political capital to prevent it. One finds in Grenfell ‘proof’ that this or that political perspective was right all along, and one will set aside ideology in order to stand alongside those who are suffering, listen, think and examine cherished assumptions. One will pretend that this is ‘about’ one thing, and one will be prepared to deal with the complexity of many causes. One will look for one individual to blame, and one will be prepared to acknowledge that evil can be structural as well as personal. One will let responsibility dissolve in a bureaucratic soup, and one will be prepared to bring wrongdoing to account.

I could go on, but you get the point. As for Scientologists so for politicians and campaigners – if you’re going to Grenfell, go to serve and to give, not to use and take.

Paul Bickley is Director of Political Programme for Theos and author of The Problem of Proselytism

Image by ChiralJon via flickr under CreativeCommons 2.0