I wrote the other day concerning the government’s inclusion of certain labels – some ideological, some religious, some political – as ‘extremist’ and their desire to put those who adhere to them on the Prevent watchlist. I noted there I was at risk, on several counts, of being included. Quite a few of them applied and I, naturally, was a bit concerned. Not so concerned I think it will actually happen, but more concerned in principle.

Since then, Michael Gove, the communities secretary, has been speaking a bit more about the issue of extremism. In this case, the Guardian report, ‘Ministers and civil servants will be banned from talking to or funding organisations that undermine “the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy”, under a new definition of extremism criticised by the government’s terror watchdog and Muslim community groups.’ Unsurprisingly, not a few Christians are a bit worried about it too.

Now, in a liberal democracy such as ours, we are entitled to make our representations and raise our concerns. We can highlight the problem of broad, sweeping definitions of extremism and the effect that will have on public life more generally. There are various democratic means of raising our concerns and making them known. We are free, entitled and maybe even wise to utilise the democratic freedoms we have to make our case, raise our concerns and seek to get problematic laws changed. I am hopeful that the comments from the government’s independent reviewer of state threat legislation, specifically that ‘Moving the focus from action to ideology or ideas is an important one because I think people will be entitled to say: ‘What business is it of the government what people think, unless they do something with that?’” will lead to the obvious conclusion that what is being proposed it effectively thought crime and is, therefore, not consistent with our existent, and seemingly still much vaunted, liberal freedoms. I struggle to see it being

But I have a question. Let’s say all our efforts on that front fail. Let’s just assume we raise our concerns and they are ignored. We make our representations and they are not heeded. Let’s just say we too end up labelled extremists. What then? Or, rather, so what?

I know lots of people will wonder what I’m smoking at this point. Isn’t it obvious, so what? Ordinary Christians will be penalised. The Church will effectively be cancelled, at least so far as public funds and access to government ministers goes. That is what is proposed: ‘Gove, who has overseen the formulation of the new definition, said it would “ensure that Government does not inadvertently provide a platform to those setting out to subvert democracy and deny other people’s fundamental rights”.’ It is essentially a disengagement policy, or so that is how it is described by the Muslim Council of Britain who are considering seeking judicial review. So that is what is at stake. To which I still say, so what?

Since when, for example, has the church stood or fallen on our ability to access ministers? Because that is really what we’re talking about here. No access to government funds and no ministerial ears to bend. I don’t doubt that both might be helpful at times, but it hardly seems to be vital for the health of the local church. Let’s just assume there is a governmental disengagement programme towards Evangelicals. I don’t for a moment pretend that is right, fair, helpful or good. But do we really think Jesus is quaking in his boots? Will the church fall apart because the government won’t engage with a chunk of us? I mean, let’s be honest, isn’t that broadly the history of the church over the last 2000. Even when governments were willing to listen to Christians, our folks (Independents, Baptists, Evangelicals, all labels we might own) tended to be at the bottom of the governmental engagement pile most of the time! And yet, we’re still here, the church isn’t dead, Jesus was Lord then and remains so now.

Biblically, government engagement really isn’t a high priority for the church. Sure, it might be helpful here and there. And I have no problem – indeed, it seems eminently sensible – to exercise our civil rights to maintain the rights and benefits that seem to serve the cause of the gospel helpfully. But should those things be removed from us, we’ll still get on with being the church. The church has never stood or fallen on how happily or otherwise the government engages with us. Whilst I don’t relish the thought of underground churches and civil disobedience – though perspective compels me to point out that really isn’t what we’re discussing with these proposals – the church has generally grown most and grown best, both qualitatively and quantitatively, when it has been persecuted. Most government disengagement programmes in history – or, perhaps more accurately, particular engagement programmes of the sort most Christians would rather the government didn’t engage them in – have usually, hard as they inevitably were for the believers under them, done more for the church than almost anything else.

Some of us, however, seem to have a real thing for influence and power. We seem to think unless we have the ear of government, unless we can win the institutions, unless we can pull the levers of power, the church is doomed. But that is neither born out biblically nor historically. Biblically, there is not a single new testament example of anyone seeking power, gaining power for the kingdom, trying to get the ear of the authorities and then exercising that power for the cause of the gospel and the good of the church. Jesus could not be much clearer in John 18:36: his kingdom is not of this world. Yet we often seem intent on trying to tie him into this world nonetheless, and fret that unless his kingdom has the goodwill of things in this world, and is seen to be in positions of might, power and/or influence his kingdom will ultimately die off. Jesus just doesn’t think it is so. Historically, the church typically hasn’t been in power and it is (often) been detrimental to its growth when it has been, both in the intramural dissension as one kind of Christian inevitably exercises power over another and in its growth amongst those pagans over whom it exercises power. Whilst I don’t want to say it has been an unmitigated bad, it has not been an overall good.

So what if the government disengage from us? The church will remain the church. We will continue being the church. Jesus remains Lord. All will be well. After all, he’s told us the end of the story and, if you haven’t read it yet, the thrust is: it’ll be reet.