Exploring Ecumenism

Hard Issues 4: Debt

The Gillray cartoon speaks to our times, showing the wealthy (George III and William Pitt) raking in the cash.  So far, so obvious.

Margaret Thatcher was an ideologue, her faith was monetarism and against all reason she deregulated the markets during the 1980s.  I have never bought the idea that markets mysteriously regulate themselves.  Whatever Adam Smith meant by his invisible hand I am certain he didn't mean what we have seen over the last couple of decades.

Private and Public Wealth

I mentioned St John's Methodist Church in a previous post.  Here it is again.  Inside the front entrance there is a foundation stone which lists several worthy men from the Sheffield steel industry.  They include T W Ward and Samuel Osborn.  I'm sure there was one other major name. 

I've also seen a photograph of J G Graves preaching at St John's.  He was a local preacher and it seems the founder of the first ever mail order company.  His name is known throughout the city as he donated a park and an art gallery and probably a few other things to the city.

At the time in the late nineteenth century this type of benevolence was known in most cities.  I certainly don't want to idealise it.  The Victorians were benevolent up to a point; the conditions for working people left a lot to be desired.

These great benefactors produced little compared with the mutuals.  Many of the institutions we know today as part of the capitalist system grew out of the mutuals.  Insurance companies, building societies, some of the banks, wholesalers, the transport system that gets goods to the shops, department stores.  All these grew out of working people's commitment to mutuals. 

Many of these institutions survive but have lost their cutting edge.  Insurance is no longer a shared risk; personal contributions increase in line with insurance claimed.  Many building societies have been demutualised and turned into banks.  All the major ones that demutualised have suffered disproportionately in the recent credit crunch.  Shared ownership is no longer understood.

And of course private capital has survived.  Its role?  Obviously they are important to the country as governments will always ensure the tax system favours them.  Their role?  Asset stripping for private wealth.  Private wealth never builds up, always it knocks down and pockets the proceeds. 

Self-Interest

To understand mutuality it is important to understand self-interest.  Most Christians would argue that altruism is the highest ethical or moral approach.  It is not.  It may seem counter-intuitive but self-interest is higher. 

The story of St Martin de la Tours illustrates this.  Martin was swift to help the beggar but did not forget that God also loves him.

More generally, self-interest should not be confused with selfishness.  To be selfish is to pursue the perceived interests of yourself to the exclusion of all others.  Self-interest is to understand that I benefit from the good I do for others.  It is this commitment to work collaboratively for the benefit of all that is the mark of lasting positive social change.  It is embodied in the commandment to love your neighbour as you love yourself. 

Lasting social systems do not result from personal greed as the monetarists would have us believe.  It is only those systems that grow out of trust and collaboration that make a lasting difference. 

But surely some die-hard altruists will be saying.  Even if self-interest is as described here, surely altruism is better.  'A greater love has no-one than this, to lay down their life for their friend'.  First, I cannot see how someone lacking self-love could possibly voluntarily give their life for a friend.  Second, I would argue this type of self-giving is based upon self-interest.  If the person who makes this sacrifice were in a position to stop and consider they might believe it would be impossible to live with themselves without making the effort. 

But I don't think it is possible to make any sacrifice that means anything without self-interest, without being conscious of our own limitations.  This is Wesley's teaching about christian perfection.  There may seem to be a contradiction here.  If perfection is about putting others first, self-interest might seem to pull in the other direction.  Two points: first self-interest includes our love for ourselves as a part of our love for others, and second as love grows our awareness of what is in our own interest deepens. 

Self-interest offers us a model for Christian Perfection.  In future posts, I will offer some practical applications which will help us see the dynamic of perfection in practice, or social transformation.

Edward Vansittart Neale

E V Neale is one of my heroes and apparently unknown to Wikipedia!  He was a barrister (and a Christian Socialist) at the time of the founding of the first retail co-operative at Toad Lane in Rochdale in the mid 1840s.  At that time he drew up the first Industrial and Provident Legislation, which meant that co-operative organisations were recognised in law.

During the 1870s and at the age of 65, Neale took on the role of first secretary of the Co-operative Union for a total of 18 years.  This was a federation of co-operatives and attempted to weld together retail and worker co-ops into a single movement.  Neale traveled extensively in Europe and reported each year on his observations of the potential of worker co-operatives and his vision for an alternative economy based upon co-operation.  Apparently, at the annual meeting of the Co-operative Union, he always received a standing ovation for his inspirational addresses.

Not so, his rival of a kind, JTW Mitchell, chairman of the Co-operative Wholesale Society, who was running a vast business enterprise and always spoke to the annual statistics about what was in the interests of the company.  The thing was that when everyone went home they followed Mitchell rather than Neale.

A journalist observed several of these annual conference and her name was Beatrice Potter.  She took a long hard look at worker co-operatives and concluded that they were no way to address the capitalist system.  She could find little evidence in Britain of the success of worker co-operatives (this may have been as a result of an adverse legislative environment as they have always seemed to do better in mainland Europe), finding that the owners would buy out the co-ops if they showed any sign of becoming succesful. 

Potter concluded that retail and worker co-ops were in competition as it is in the interest of workers to increase wages and of consumers to reduce them.  She concluded consumers were best protected by retail co-ops and workers by trade unions.

Some of my non-readers will be sad to note Potter did not hallucinate animals in waistcoats, instead she married Sydney Webb and with others went on to found the Labour Party to safeguard the interests of workers.

So, was Neale a hopeless idealist?  It is interesting to ask why worker co-ops did so poorly in Britain.  They have been and remain more successful in Europe but they often do so in a legislative environment which supports them.  To this day common ownership is not adequately supported in legislation. 

One of the purposes of this blog is to equip churches with not only issues but also some answers.  Whilst I firmly believe mutuality is an approach which the churches should advocate I tell this story as a warning.  Simply having a good method is not enough.  We also need to read the signs of the time and explore how any approach might best be used.  Mitchell was not charismatic but he could see what worked and how best to support it.  He was part of a wide and successful movement of which CWS was only a small part.  We need to take note of this movement and its successes but also of its failures.

From Structural to Relational Unity

I intend to develop the theme of mutuality further but before I do that, perhaps this is a good point to step back and ask why it is important to ecumenism.

Throughout this blog I am developing a theology of ecumenism based upon oikoumene, the reconciliation of all things to God, rather than the ecumenism which focuses upon reconciliation of the churches.  After the failure of the English Covenant during the early 1980s, the enthusiasm for structural unity began to fall away.  In 1987, the Swanwick Agreement led to the Churches Together approach, an approach based on relationships rather than structures.  Here we are 20 years on and it seems Swanwick was ahead of its time.  The mainstream churches still cling to the old vision whilst other churches and younger generations have abandoned structural unity and are developing their own approach to relational unity.

We need an approach which contextualises ecumenism within the world as we find it.  My approach is to develop a theological approach to conversations.

Clearly if we understand conversations to mean simply talks between churches we will not progress very far.  This is where Kahane's typology of conversations and particularly his generative type of conversation is so important.

Generative conversations embody a collective commitment to act according to a shared vision.  So does mutuality as a shared economic vision.  Mutuality is a word we use to describe generative conversation.

At some time in the future I will introduce the theme of post-Christendom to this blog.  Some churches see their calling as a return to the authentic witness of the first century church.  This is a view with which I have some sympathy but my question is whether it goes far enough.  It is easy for a small congregationalist church to claim authenticity.  Maybe they are right but if they are it is still not good enough.

Why not?  Because our call is not to simply save ourselves but the transformation of the whole of creation.  When the churches ignore this greater calling, called sanctification by Wesley, then things go wrong for everyone.

The reason I focus on issues such as the economy is that I believe it is by focusing on these issues together, the churches will be much more effective than attempting to be authentic alone. 

I have called this dimension of ecumenism transformational reception. 

Types of Investment 4: Mutuality

Christians seem to have problems with the second commandment, 'Love your neighbours, as you love yourself'.  Apart from the the usual difficulties we all have when it comes to loving our neighbours, it seems the commandment is almost always misunderstood. 

At school we were told about a triple ranking of love.  God comes first in the first commandment and then the second commandment tells us to love our neighbours and then the third ourselves.  This is of course rubbish.

The second commandment does not make a distinction between our neighbours and ourselves; we are equal.  In God's sight we are all the same and so should we be in our own eyes.  Obviously I am no different to anyone else and so should not make the distinction.  The story of St Martin de la Tours makes a similar point.

In a genuine community this is obvious.  It is only when people cease to be dependent upon their neighbours that they forget that usually we are all in this together.

Our natural state is one of mutuality.  In terms of investment it is where many people contribute to a common cause.  There is no debtor and no creditor; no-one invests an extremely large amount, or if they do it confers no great advantage on them.  In terms of conversation it is the generative stage; where all share a vision and work towards it together.

I intend to develop this theme over the next few posts but just one more point.  Mutuality is not an ideal world we will achieve if we all collaborate.  There are hundreds of examples of mutuality working here and now.  I will also identify some of the weaknesses of this approach.

On the Meaning of a Simple Story

Some years ago, at a conference for County Ecumenical Officers, an aid agency led a session.  It's a long time ago and I can't remember the name of the agency or the theme of the talk.  However, they told a story and I do remember that.

Somewhere in Africa, food was scarce and a woman had no meat to feed her children.  She had a large clay pot with a lid and filled it with water.  She picked some herbs and placed them in the water, put the lid on and set the pot on the fire.  She told her children the pot was full of meat and so they were not to touch it and that she was going to look for some herbs.  She placed another pot on her head and set off.  Soon she came to a clearing and found a dead buffalo.  It was freshly killed and she knew that because a lion was eating it.  She hid in bushes and considered what to do.  She took the ring of plaited grass she wore on her head to carry the pot and threw it a long way into the bushes.  The lion distracted, ran after the disturbance and the woman quickly threw dirt on the buffalo.  Lions will not eat dirty meat and so after it returned the lion soon left the meat.  The woman waited and then cut off the meat she needed, washed it in a nearby stream and placed it in her pot.  Upon returning home she added the meat to the pot on the fire.  There was more than enough meat for the meal and so she also fed all the childrenin the neighbourhood.

The aid agency asked what we thought the story was about and the usual sort of conversation followed where the lion was taken to be the West and so on.

It was only after the session that the meaning of this story dawned on me.  That is why I have remembered it.  The point of the story is in the very last few words.  The woman finds meat after considerable adversity and then gives most of it away.  Why?

The answer is self-interest, not altruism.  Tomorrow, another woman might be lucky enough to find a lion.  She will do the same and feed all the children.  This is the mutual sharing practiced by communities that survive.

Conversation between a Christian and a Secular Model

Over the last few days I have been comparing the Presence U model with the ancient hymn in Philippians chapter 2.  In this post I want to take a step back and ask to what extent this is a legitimate exercise.  I don't think I'm going to be able to come to a conclusive argument either way but I think it is important in any theological work to reflect on the methods deployed.

I have already stated several times that I do not think the U model and the hymn are the same thing.  They are images of each other and whilst I don't think it is even desirable to reduce them to a single process, it may be helpful to allow them to inform each other.

There is no copyright on the U shape.  The pattern of death and resurrection can be found in many faiths.  Indeed, Christian mission would be more difficult if this were not the case.  This congruence between faiths allows for the exploration of common ground.  Theologians and missiologists call this inculturation.

The U model was devised for use in businesses by people asking how they might meet the challenges of climate change.  It is not a religious exercise, although it has religious connotations.  This in itself is an opening for conversations about matters of faith. 

However, we should be aware that it is possible the U model might consciously or unconsciously have been influenced by Christian theology.  In places the book resonates with allusions to gospel material.  None of the authors in their biographies lay claim to a Christian faith although it is hard to imagine they have been shielded entirely from its influences growing up in the United States.  But these images are a part of our culture.  Anyone exploring matters of psychology, spirituality or philosophy is likely to encounter them.

We should also be mindful of Missio Dei, where it is understood the spirit of God goes before us into communities (similar to if not the same as Wesley's 'prevenient grace').  The issues facing us are so severe say the authors they cannot identify any power other than business able to effect the necessary changes.  In terms of how God may be working through humanity to mitigate climate change, it is not impossible that businesses have a crucial part to play in it, especially considering their role in causing it.

So, let me try to summarise the mutual advantage of an interplay between these movements.  It seems to me that Presence is a timely reminder to the churches of the power of conversations to effect change.  They offer us an opportunity to recall how the spirit transforms our values and helps us work collaboratively for the welfare of humanity and the whole cosmos.  In return, the Christian faith offers a challenge to Presence - is it likely that setting aside our assumptions and picking up new ones is enough?  Sooner or later the challenge will be to make material sacrifices.  Certainly it is apparent current global financial systems cannot last if they are to be fair and far less exploitative of the enviromment.  This implies a move towards a mutual approach to economics.  This will require a spiritual change which seems to go beyond what Presence has experienced so far.

Nineteenth Century Working Class Movements

If my conjecture about the impact of Wesley's evangelical revival on the nineteenth century working classes is correct I will need more evidence to back it up than I am capable of producing.  Nonetheless, I think there is a certain amount of circumstantial evidence around and yesterday I suggested some evidence from Wesley's teaching.  At the very least this evidence might encourage further exploration. 

Today I want to explore circumstantial evidence from those movements themselves.  My first point is that there is plenty of evidence that many of the familiar institutions in modern society  originated from the organised working classes rather than from the initiatives of the wealthy.  Of course money was needed to, for example build churches, but social institutions were quite another matter. 

The retail co-operative movement is particularly interesting as it was founded to provide high quality food to the poor at an affordable price.  The customers were the owners and received a share of the profit as a dividend.  The growth of this movement is often under-appreciated and as well as hundreds of retail societies, the co-op developed the first wholesale societies and the networks of transport to deliver supplies to the retail societies.  Even department stores were an invention of the co-operative movement.  The earliest societies also had reading rooms and aimed to educate their customers as well as feed them.  This spirit of co-operation spread into libraries, banks, building societies, insurance companies as well as many small mutual aid societies where members paid into a common pool to support those members or their families who fell on hard times.  Note I'm not arguing these grew out of formal Methodism but that the ways in which Methodism was organised encouraged similar developments in other fields. 

Co-operation or mutuality is another element of these institutions.  Mutuality is an approach about which I will have a lot to say in future posts.  It is understood by the poor, as they commit to support one another in their poverty.  By organising, mutuality could be made more effective.  It is not generally understood to be summarised in Jesus' second commandment to love our neighbours as we love ourselves.  Preachers often say this means we have to love ourselves after our neighbours but this is not the plain meaning of the words.  This is not pure altruism, it is care for all as if we are a part of each other.  Why?  Because we are all loved by God and so the second commandment means everyone including me. 

Finally, we should note that Methodism and these movements were democratic.  There are many forms of democracy, the two main types being representative democracy (where we elect others to represent us) and the type where we are heard directly.  Representative democracy is a convenience, the direct type requires our commitment.  It requires our participation in the process even where the final decision may be made by a few elected or agreed leaders. 

Wesley was never elected and his societies were run by trusted selected leaders.  However, it is interesting to read how he viewed 'conferencing'.  Runyon writes:

... Wesley's understanding of "conference" as a means of grace.  Whilst it is true that "conference" later became the term for the one hundred preachers Wesley assembled annually to advise him and to conduct the business of Methodism, from the beginning "conferring together" or "conferencing", was the means of opening up new insights and possibilities that could not be arrived at singly.  The effect was democratising, ... whether Wesley intended it or not.  Its rapid growth from small beginnings resulted in members of the movement having 'a direct say in many decisions ... All this was democracy in action, and ran counter to the authoritarian and hierarchical structure inherited by the Church of England from the Middle Ages.'  (Page 126, Runyon's emphasis)

So, what has all this to do with ecumenism?  After two months of posts I think I am now in a position to summarise my understanding of what ecumenism is. 

St Martin de Tours

If ecumenism were to have a patron saint (I'm sure someone will tell me it already has!) my vote (if voting is allowed in these mysterious matters) would be for St Martin de Tours.  If you follow the link to Wikipedia you will think he is an unlikely candidate, a saint favoured by men and the military.  Although he seems an odd saint for the military as refused to fight. 

My reason is the story of St Martin and the Beggar, and my account is influenced by Thom Gunn's poem of the same name which can be found in 'The Sense of Movement' (1957).

Imagine young Martin, the soldier riding his horse across marshland at night. The wind is blowing and the hail bounces off his sword.  He is stopped by the figure of a naked beggar and out of sympathy, he takes his sword and cuts his great cloak in half.  He hands half to the beggar and wraps the remainder around himself.  Later whilst eating a meal in a pub the beggar appears to him and turns out to be Christ.  (The Wikipedia account is different but makes the same point.)

'You recognised the human need/Included yours, because/you did not hesitate, my saint,/ to cut your cloak across;/ But never since that moment/ did you regret the loss.

My enemies would have turned away,/ my holy toadies would/have given all the cloak and frozen/ conscious that they were good./ but you, being a saint of man,/ gave only what you could.'

The story goes that small pieces of the cloak were placed in wayside shrines as relics of the saint.  The Italian word for cloak is 'capella' and in time these shrines became known as chapels.  (Wikipedia tells a similar story for the origins of the word 'chaplain'.)  The saint is known for this story and would be understood by those who experience mutuality as a way of life.