DEFINITIONS: WHAT’S IN A WORD?  

Words matter. Without them we would not be who we are – whether as individuals or collectively. The range of languages and vocabularies containing them is itself huge. And then there are variations and subtleties in their individual meanings and definitions. 

The dominant connotation of a particular word has always been susceptible to change over time. The speed of vocabulary shifts has been accelerated by social media usage – new words, loss of innocence or of ‘street cred’ for others. The Owl and the Pussycat is at high risk of sexualised innuendo. ‘Woke’ with its 1860s antislavery message in US politics was rediscovered in recent decades, but latterly has come to be suspect for arrogance.  

WORKING VOCABULARY  

‘Nation’ It is clear that references to nation and nationality are often emotionally loaded in ways that can equally be positively enthusiastic or suspicious to the extent of preferred avoidance. Perhaps ‘twas ever thus. ‘Rallying round the flag’ has been a sign of personal association with a deep-seated sense of collective identity, acquired from birth in a ‘homeland’, ‘father/motherland’. At the same time, some have wanted to qualify the extent of that embrace. Their awareness of national and global history leads to some degree of hesitation, if not outright rejection, especially if they hear: “My country right or wrong”, “slavery was never British, was it”.  
In recent years feelings of ambivalence were evident in schools over the sudden obligation on them to promote ‘British Values’. Yes, certain values which might be claimed for instance as ‘commonly human’, ‘fundamentally Christian’, or ‘morally basic’ might have been what was intended in government decree. But, historically certain values evident in imperial past or Windrush present are still lurking. Similarly, contention over Brexit was amplified by suspicions on the part of some that Remainers in their espousal of global humanity were careless of any continuing sense of Britishness, or that Leavers were all Little Englanders.  
The period of lockdown from Covid-19 induced a heightened degree of national awareness reflected in blanket media coverage and daily press briefings. Within this was a deep-felt sense of crisis and threat, accompanied by expectations of wise political leadership and strategic response, to be followed by performance being comparatively assessed across the four nations of the UK as also with the countries of continental Europe and globally. Although now tempered by disappointment, the common sense that “We’re all in this together” has perhaps led to greater awareness of failings and inequalities along with a readiness to admit such, eg Racism.  
The weekly Clapping of Key Workers had something of the spirit of national celebration experienced in the Opening Ceremony for the 2012 Olympic Games. Although not for all, for many it was genuinely adulatory, rediscovering the specialness in what’s taken for granted, realising mistakes, and grateful for fairness and compassion. Ensuring that these qualities of national identity are reflected in the collective life of schools would make huge educational sense.  

‘Faith’ Although the word is in common usage, its different meanings are often assumed without question. For instance, it may serve as a given name for a daughter because it sounds warm and is there in family tradition. It may refer to a cumulative tradition of religious belief, now fixed in firm format. Or it may be affirming a quality of sincerity and genuineness – ‘acted in good faith’.  
It can be used in an externalised way which categorises people, as do terms like age, ethnicity, race and sex. But it is different from these because it relates to an individual mindset and not primarily a biological given. Unfairly, that mindset is sometimes treated as lacking rationality - no more than a whim or passing fancy. When this happens, it becomes the basis for creating conflict between faith and science. Such polarisation is only necessary if all faith is judged as anti-rational – some versions can be, but only if for instance their theology disconnects its notion of God or transcendent reality from Reason, or their science takes nothing on trust, even experimentally.  
Instead of thinking of faith only in an institutionally denominated way or as antirational, it is important to recognise that in a deeper sense we each live by faith. We take on trust that our bodies will respond to food, water and sleep and that urinating and defecating will happen as a necessary rhythm. We rely on others to reciprocate smiles and waves. We assume that whether or not we can see it, the sun will rise and the world exists. When any of these are interrupted or do not happen, we can become mildly anxious or even seriously distressed. We call to mind that our faith that these will all continue is not absolutely guaranteed. The virus arrives and, as in wartime trenches, we are not only reminded of the precariousness of life but perhaps also of the fact there is a universe when there might not be such. There is order from reason, there is understanding from science, and at bottom and in the end we trust, we depend on more, we have faith in being at all. In this sense faith is generically human.  
How individually and collectively we articulate the faith we live with and express it in outward form varies enormously and deserves respect. We might need to be wary of categorising someone as of ‘no faith’ on the basis of their lack of institutional belonging. Unwittingly, that can show a lack of appreciation of the acute pain and desperation felt by an individual who finds life to be utterly meaningless. Anyone who has lost hope and with it any faith in living cries out, but in a much deeper way than implied by the external denominator of ‘non-faith’.  

‘Religion’ Because of its association with violence, the ‘R’ word can be an immediate ‘turn-off’, and perhaps already a prompt for social embarrassment. So much depends on how it is understood. One definition is simply ‘belief in God’. However, what that means is far from simple because notions of ‘God’ are so varied. For instance, God may be understood as a distant external source – the controlling puppeteer who pulls all the strings. Alternatively, as an all-pervading presence - individual beings all of whom are part of universal Greater Being. Significantly, the Muslim 99 Names for God reject any single ‘boxing’, as does reminder talk of the ’ineffability of God’. Given this variety, such different beliefs as ‘you’ll die when your number’s up’, ‘Mother Nature’ and the Gaia hypothesis also have something of ‘godness’ in them. It’s not even true that belief in God is a prerequisite of all religions. Traditionally Theravada Buddhists and Jains are non-theistic. Superficial polarisation deserves patient interrogation1.  
Across the world, formal religious identifications are commonplace on the part of over four fifths of the world’s population. They become agglomerated as Baha’i, Buddhist, Christian, Confucian, Hindu, Jain, Jewish, Muslim, Pagan, Rastafarian, Shinto, Sikh, Zoroastrian and yet others. They cannot be reduced to a common core. Belief is a given, but what is believed is massively diverse not only with regard to God but also on such matters as human perfectibility and virtue, the need or otherwise for an interventionist saviour, and post mortem prospects. Many have sacred texts, but the nature of the Revelation/Enlightenment is internally debated and externally contested between them. All have tales to tell, but there’s variation over whether the telling matters as much as or even more than their historicity. Artistic expression in musical and visual forms is often strikingly vivid, but sometimes taboo. Religions all engage in performative rituals, but diversely so – celebratory moments in personal daily routines, family rhythms and/or annual festivities – and they have some degree of organisational structure, but this may or may not be hierarchical. Whilst all acknowledge the significance of personal experience, some promote its mystic nature more than do others. And though moral sense matters universally, there are differences in how this is articulated.  
Taken together, there are some family resemblances between them all, but no identical twinning. Their constituent features are those of common humanity – being religious and being human are two sides of the same coin as anthropologists2 and archaeologists3 readily remark.  

‘Humanist’ The term Humanist has come to be defined as the antithesis of Religious. There is no reason to deny that such an interpretation is legitimate, but as with ‘religious’ more than one definition is equally legitimate. Similarly, there is no reason to ignore or to disrespect the fact that as an organisation Humanists UK is reluctant to accept the suggestion that Humanists have faith.  
At the same time, it is fair to remark that this is an historical departure from the European Renaissance and earlier non-European settings wherein religious and humanist were commonly used of the same person. Typically, Erasmus was Christian scholar and “Prince of the Humanists”4. Articles on Hinduism and Science in Zygon5 , as well as overviews of the religious features of the Confucian tradition6, indicate that Humanist ingredients in Chinese and Indian civilisations are not necessarily anti-religious. The signatories of the first Humanist Manifesto published in 1933 included Christians and Jews, theologians and philosophers, including John Dewey7 . They would have no hesitation in speaking of the ‘faith of the humanist’. Accordingly, it is reasonable to recognise the legitimacy of individual Buddhists, Christians, Jews and Hindus – and those with another religious association – continuing to want also to call themselves humanists. They resist any implication that their respective religious identity plays down their fundamental commitment to humanity.  
The respectively inclusive use of both terms – humanist and religious – was evident in the foundation year of the RE Council of England and Wales, in which the British Humanist Association (BHA) became a full member organisation and has remained so alongside other national faith communities ever since. This permits the interpretation that some member organisations understand the religious allegiance of others to be exclusively theistic. At the same time, it allows the interpretation that some are self consciously atheistic. It is perfectly reasonable to recognise that a humanist believer may be described as religious and for a religious believer to be humanist. For either believer to campaign in favour of a wilfully exclusive definition assumes their own exceptional right to patent word usage in a way that smacks of ‘thought control’. As the saying goes: “Careless words cost lives”.  

‘Worship’ may not be a word most people in the UK use of themselves, but it’s actually a basic ingredient in the human life stream. It’s all about how we respond to what matters most to us both as individuals and ‘together’ – whether expressed in silent stillness and quiet murmur or expressions of extreme delight.  
It may be prompted by some immediately positive experience or event “It brings tears to my eyes”, “What can I say?”, “That takes my breath away”, “I’m over the moon”, “Wow!” “OMG!” It may equally be a reflective and gentled sense of appreciation and gratitude.  
In practice, it’s more common for the word ‘worship’ to be associated with what happens in churches, gurdwaras, mosques and synagogues, but because these are minority activities, its usage becomes exceptionalised. Even so, it’s not unusual to find examples of the notion of ‘worship’ being used with more general meaning. This might be in a relatively trivial way as in ‘sun worshipper’ – not in an Aztec sense but more simply referring to enjoyment (on the part of the ‘white-skinned’) of bathing and bronzing in the sunshine. Or it might be more seriously used to characterise money or sex-centredness to the extent that it becomes all-determinative. In these senses financial gain or sexual gratification have ceased to be important parts of a richer totality of human experience and instead become its obsessive preoccupation. As such they can be defended as devotional options expressive of human freedom. They can also be critiqued as devotionally ‘idolatrous’.  
As demonstrable from the Oxford English Dictionary, worship is also sometimes used to describe the attitude and affection shown by one individual towards another – totally ‘wowed’ by/devoted to (as in the traditional marriage service “with my body I thee worship”). The special-ness is yet ordinary and well earthed. It’s also used more hierarchically to convey respect for the office of a public servant “His/Her Worship the Mayor”. Etymologically as ‘worth-ship’ it involved ascribing worth to whatever constitutes ‘a source or ground of honour or importance’ and that might well be your mate. The UK Supreme Court has also acknowledged the breadth of the word worship and that it can be used in both transitive senses and intransitively.  
In sum, as humans we commonly worship and opportunities to check its component features and expressions are important. Where, if at all, does worship appear in our individual and collective lives? The advertising industry thrives on appeals to conscious and unconscious attraction. And the sales inspire devotional pursuit.  
What we understand by each of the words - nation, faith, humanist, religion and worship - will have a significant part in any future development of Religious Education within all publicly funded schools, academies and colleges. 

1. https://religionandatheism-beyondthedivide.com
2. Edith Turner Communitas: The Anthropology of Collective Joy (2012); Janice Boddy + Michael Lambek (eds) Companion to the Anthropology of Religion (2015); Douglas J Davies Anthropology and Theology (2020). 
3. https://www.encyclopedia.com/environment/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/archaeologyand-religion; Ronald Hutton The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles. Their Nature and Legacy (1991), Timothy Insoll (ed)The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Ritual and Religion (2012).  
4. https://www.timelineindex.com/content/view/499 
5. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9744.2012.01274.x  
6. Confucianism as a World Religion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fENb3pqg_E0
7. https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/manifesto1