Exploring Ecumenism

Participative Methods 5: Non-directive Consultancy

It is a long time since I added to this series.  The others can be found under the category Participation and the first in the series is here.

I thought it would be an opportunity to write about this topic whilst I was writing a recent post about the need for structural ecumenism.  The post makes the case for structural ecumenism but says little about the practicalities of supporting ecumenical work.

Non-directive consultancy was developed by George Lovell, the founder of AVEC, which for several decades trained church and community workers in the basics of non-directive community work.  In later years George was one of the founders of the course Consultancy for Mission and Ministry.  The course continues although George has recently retired.  I have placed a link to one of George's books in the sidebar, go to Amazon to find the others.

Churches Together in England Forum 2009

Yesterday I returned from Churches Together in England's Forum.  This body of about 300 people meets every three years and provides guidance to CTE about the state of the churches.  The theme this year was Changing World: Changing Church? 

I attended the last Forum in 2006 and dipped into the Forum in 2003; this time I noticed a change in mood.  I was not the only person to feel this and I will try to write a few lines about my take on what was happening.

Unity and Exclusion

Kim's message is that the type of unity we seek is what is important.  By seeking a unity based upon one way of being Christian we will end up with factions bolstered by an ideology of perfection.  On page 6, Kim writes:

People of the same culture flock together for worship and social cohesion and often remain in their comfort zones and build walls that exclude others.  The poor and the unfortunate become estranged and hopelessly marginalised because the dominant conception of the community is too narrow to embrace them. 

To be fair, mainstream churches have strategies to avoid this.  The dilemma for ecumenists is that they tend to be drawn into seeking a reconciliation of structures, rather than a reconciliation of practice.  Paradoxically, the larger churches have to accommodate a variety of approaches, and they do this in a variety of ways.  It is unarguable the Roman Catholic Church is an extremely diverse church.  It is local churches that tend to be monocultural. 

One problem for Methodists in Britain can be found in debates around fresh expressions.  They are needed because many people find mainstream Methodism too narrow.  They cannot find a place to fit in.  So, fresh expressions selects certain groups, of usually younger people, and develops new congregations (and later churches) for these groups. 

This seems to work reasonably well until the transition from congregation to church takes place.  To become a church poses the question, which church?  To be Methodist implies being a part of the circuit system and on paper this could be a solution to the tendency for fresh expressions to draw on only one culture.  By being part of the circuit with churches from other cultures, the church is made more diverse.  The problem is most fresh expressions do not want to be a part of a circuit.

And yet fresh expressions can overcome the trend to single culture churches and become something inclusive.  A good example is Somewhere Else in Liverpool City Centre.  This is a Methodist Church and part of a circuit.  It meets on Tuesday and Thursday mornings in rooms above a feminist bookshop.  It is Methodist but draws Christians from other traditions and is based around baking bread.  Over the time they have been joined by homeless people and have developed work with victims of sexual abuse.  Some years ago when they asked for funding they said they did not want too much because being on a knife edge kept them radical. 

Perhaps there is a clue here that the constant battle to keep going is sustained for so long as those involved are committed to keeping going.  It is impossible for anything to be perfect under these circumstances and so a real diversity can flourish.  I will explore this further over the next few days before returning to Kim's book.

Urban Theology Unit

In an earlier post I mentioned the difference between contextual and academic theology.  This was in the context of reflection upon the image of God embodied in the whole of humanity, rather than any single culture or faith. 

The Urban Theology Unit was founded around 1970 in inner city Sheffield, a few streets away from where I live.  The idea from the outset was to do theology from a specific context.  Students (for the first few decades they were known as the study year) could join in doing theology in inner city Sheffield, hear of other contextual theologies and learn to apply them in their own context.

This approach to 'doing theology' was contrasted with academic theology in the universities.  The idea is that all Christians do theology in their setting, whether or not they are aware of it or even equipped for it.  Inspirations came from Latin American Liberation Theology and by the time I did the study year in 1981-82, contexts such as Feminist, Black, Asian and of course Urban theologies.

Even by the early 80s this approach had become better known to the extent that as the 80s progressed contextual theologies were incorporated into the course work of other theological seminaries.  Soon, it appeared ministerial students were sitting examinations in topics such as the (renamed) pastoral cycle (I knew it as action-reflection or the hermeneutical circulation) and UTU moved on, itself becoming more academic in its approach.  At one time it boasted of being the only theological seminary in Europe with 2 outside lavatories; now this is seen as a bit of a liability. 

I do not in any way wish to criticise UTU for these changes; it has had to move with the times and what was a successful movement for a period in Britain, where radical approaches to theology had an impact on the churches, has moved on and Christians now look to movements like fresh expressions for alternative Christian lifestyles. 

I wonder to what extent mainstream ecumenism was influenced by radical or contextual theology and the extent to which churches together reflect theologically on their context?  If we are different and so able to view the same context from a range of theological perspectives, to what extent do the churches really capitalise on their differences in this way?  If we are seeking the will of God in a situation, it seems likely multiple perspectives would better equip the church as a whole.

Also, radical theology has influenced my life as a Christian.  My understanding of ecumenism must have been formed as a result of my approach to radical theology, formed (4 years after my conversion) by my study year at UTU. 

Ecumenical Reception - conversations in three dimensions?

It appears then that conversations take place in two dimensions; between and within traditions.  But this cannot be the full picture.  William Rusch in Ecumenical Reception writes on page 116:

It should be noted that to date there is virtually no evidence of even partial or preliminary ecumenical reception of ethical or gender issues that are now showing the potential of being church-dividing within and among churches.  Until some clarity is obtained on these subjects, further steps towards ecumenical reception will be hampered.

If the aim of ecumenical reception is full visible unity, it has to be asked what would be the consequence of achieving such a goal?  Our local churches wrestle with a range of ethical issues, sometimes as a result of a decision they have made, sometimes because they're forced to and sometimes without understanding what they are facing.  Sometimes local churches do this together.  Usually, we call this mission and sometimes it is asserted that unity is essential for mission. 

So, two churches of different traditions are wrestling together with a local issue.  How would closer agreement about the conduct of holy communion help them to do this?  Let me be clear, I'm not saying communion is irrelevant to the mission of these churches.  I am saying we need to understand how our ecumenical conversations are relevant to local mission.

The churches in Cleveland were able to collaborate over long term unemployment through RESPOND!  I have no recollection of ever discussing the traditional concerns of ecumenical conversations.  The churches journeyed very deeply into practical theology, especially through Dark Holy Ground but I don't think the formal differences ever made any difference.  It is a long time ago and my memory may be faulty but I think many churches jointly engaged in mission today would also fail to see the link.

Indeed formal ecumenical conversations might even inhibit collaboration if Rusch is right and the churches cannot agree about gender and ethical issues.  The cries asking why we always have to wait for the slowest before we can do anything would be deafening.

Of course, most local churches collaborate over mission and ignore the ecumenical conversations as at best irrelevant and at worst divisive.  Perhaps mission is a third dimension where formal conversations are prepared to enter into dialogue with the issues that engage local churches.  As we contemplate climate change, debt and racism (to name three out of many intractable issues of our time) what do our ecumenical conversations have to contribute? 

Reflections on Cleveland in the 1980s

I intend to return to Dark Holy Ground in the future but this will be my last post about it for a while (until I find the paperwork).  I want to reflect on ecumenism in the light of what happened in Cleveland over 20 years ago. 

1. RESPOND! and Dark Holy Ground were ecumenical projects - they were conceived as such from the outset and the spirit of collaboration was largely unimpeded by the usual concerns about unity.  I am not saying these concerns are unimportant; merely that they did not in any way impede this work.
2. A great deal of ecumenical work is of this type.  An issue is identified and the relevant churches get together to address it.  This happens to such an extent that it seems there are almost two ecumenisms; that of formal conversations and that of informal collaboration.  To a large degree these continue independently of each other.  This is equally true between national churches and between local churches.  For now I simply make this observation.
3. The experience of Dark Holy Ground raises other questions about ecumenism.  The exercise of listening to marginalised people changed the lives of those people.  It brought people at the margins of the churches into the mainstream of the lives of the churches; to the extent that a range of church leaders were able to speak to government ministers on the behalf of the marginalised.  It could be asked whether churches could have enabled direct conversations between the government and long term unemployed but for its time this was a radical departure.
4. Dark Holy Ground presented the churches with the image of the dark face of God and this is something the churches together still need to hear and experience.  There is a great deal of talk of sharing the treasures of our traditions and perhaps too little willingness to explore the dark places in relationships between churches.  Even churches that are habitual close collaborators at times find themselves facing darker dimensions to their relationships.
5. And what of relationships where one potential partner refuses to recognise the other as Christian?  Such debates, or sometimes confrontations, quickly lead us all in dark places.  (If you don't recognise me and my tradition, how can I possibly recognise you and yours?)  These confrontations are not peripheral and sometimes reach the very core of our mainstream churches.   

Dark Holy Ground

Dark Holy Ground was a course run by RESPOND! during the 1980s.  Robert Gallagher, one of the 3 course leaders had a gift for listening.  He made loads of notes on scraps of paper and so one evening after the course the 3 leaders took them to a pub in Guisborough.  Over a few pints they set them in  order, with much debate, which must have been loud because after they finished they looked up to find their table surrounded by people fascinated by what they were discussing.  I have that booklet somewhere and when I find it I will quote from it on this blog.

I met Robert, to interview him for my only ill-fated article for the Teesside Advertiser.  As the participants shared their experiences, the long term unemployed spoke of how they thought their unemployment was their fault.  Then by hearing each others stories they discovered that others felt the same way, soon they came to see unemployment as not their fault but something to do with society.

Frequently they spoke of how they had come to see unemployment as the best thing that happened to them, something that has to come from the heart of those who have experienced it.  This experience of the power of sharing stories was repeated many times as groups of long-term unemployed formed across the county.

Soon , they came to speak of darkness - how God had a dark face but was still somehow God.  The pain and burden of unemployment remained but somehow recognising God in the darkness made a difference.  They began to see their estates as dark holy ground.

And then they turned to the psalms and found people who lived 3000 years ago had experienced what they experienced.  One particular example was particularly powerful.  Psalm 139: 11.12 reads (New RSV):

If I say, 'Surely the darkness shall cover me, and the light around me become night', even the darkness is not dark to you; the night is as bright as the day, for darkness is as light to you.

They read these verses and someone noticed that at the end it is still dark.  The darkness is not dark, the night is as bright as the day but it is still dark; still night.  To find common ground with the psalmists in Cleveland's estates was empowering even though the pain remained. 

The Christian faith does know joy but to focus on joy to the exclusion of suffering is to deny people's experience of the dark face of God.  Many dark places are empowering, the image of light needs to give away to the equally empowering image of darkness.  When we acknowledge the pain in people's lives a real transformation begins.

I had two conversations with Robert.  During the second he asked how I thought he felt as he listened as a pastor to someone pour out the story of their pain.  This was of course a rhetorical question; his answer was 'joy'.  I didn't understand.  'Because', he said, 'it is there in the pain that I feel closest to God'.   

RESPOND! (Churches Response to Cleveland's Industrial Crisis)

This time I've checked Google first and I can find no trace of RESPOND!, so it is down to my unreliable memory.  RESPOND! (Churches' Response to Cleveland's Industrial Crisis) grew out of Impasse and also the work of Teesside Industrial Mission (TIM).  During the 1980s it was independent of TIM but I think it returned to the care of TIM in the nineties.  I left Middlesbrough in 1989 and so my knowledge of what happened after that date is hazy.

In 1983 when I moved to Middlesbrough, RESPOND! was a small group set up by TIM to address the Industrial Crisis (I don't think it was called RESPOND! in those days) but it was in 1984 (I think) when RESPOND! obtained funding, that the work took off with the appointment of Keith Lindsey.  Keith had previously founded a youth work project in Stockton called the Ravens.

One major dimension to the work was the opportunity to speak directly to government ministers.  RESPOND! prepared reports for the Church Leaders who were able to call government ministers to Cleveland.  The reports were written with the participation of unemployed people across the county.  So, this process, which was repeated several times, enabled the views of the long term unemployed to be heard directly by the government.  The first included the idea that Cleveland could be designated as an experimental area to try out new ideas for work with the unemployed.  I don't remember how or whether the government responded but the truth was Cleveland was an experimental area in its own right.  Impasse and a variety of copycat projects, some inspired directly by RESPOND!, were springing up all over the place.  For a couple of years in the late 80s I wrote articles for RESPOND! about unemployment projects for the local free paper .  There was never any shortage of places to visit.

Keith made lots of contacts with groups of unemployed people all over the county and these led to a training course called Dark Holy Ground.  This was led by Keith, Robert Gallagher, who at the time was vicar with the Local Ecumenical Partnership in Coulby Newham, and the Catholic Priest at the Catholic Cathedral in Middlesbrough - I'm afraid I've forgotten his name.  The courses were a mix of long term unemployed and people in employment.

The impact of these courses was phenomenal.  They were the topic of the only article for the free paper I had rejected!  I will write about the findings in future posts.

Middlesbrough Impasse

During the late seventies and early eighties, Revd Bill Hall (he may have been a Canon) was Chaplain to Arts and Recreation for the Durham Anglican Diocese.  He started to meet with long-term unemployed people and at some stage asked the question, if you set aside a wage, what else do you gain from employment?  His group of unemployed people brainstormed answers and found 6 or 7 practical advantages to being employed besides income.  I'm not sure I can remember them all but they included a structure to the day, friendships, opportunity to use or develop skills and so on.

The next step was to ask why should the unemployed lose these opportunities as well as an income by virtue of being unemployed?  And so Impasse was born.

There were several Impasse centres mainly around Teesside.  The biggest was on the main street in Middlesbrough.  There people could spend the day practicing car maintenance or needlework, making furniture  or preparing economic meals which were on sale at low prices.  Skilled workers taught the less skilled and people were enocuraged to find work to do for themselves. 

This idea was copied around the county (Cleveland) and during the period I lived there (1983 -89) there were several Impasse centres and other copycat centres.    Bill saw this as revolutionary, he used to say the unemployed were the vanguard of the revolution.  However, it was another project RESPOND! - Churches' Response to Cleveland's Industrial Crisis which really addressed and more about that another time.

I wrote these few paragraphs and then thought to Google Middelsbrough Impasse and I'm delighted to find it (and Bill Hall) were still going strong in 2001.  Comparison between this article and my memories above may illustrate how time dilutes memory!