Exploring Ecumenism

Neoliberalism and the Decline in Diversity

I want to return today to an old theme, the global economic problems.  I came across an article, A last chance, in an old edition of the New Statesman, dated 10 November 2008.  The article, by Paul Mason, was written in anticipation of a meeting of the G20 leaders on 15 November 2008.  He argues that the issue facing the G20 was not a simple debate about neoliberalism's rights and wrongs, matters have gone beyond that - neoliberalism has 'brought the world to the brink of an economic nuclear winter'.  This is not an accident but a flaw in its central mechanism. 

Fundamentalism and Ecumenism

I'm not attempting an in-depth analysis of the current economic crisis.  My focus in this post is as always the implications for relationships between the churches.  They are profound for two reasons.

First, the churches are compromised themselves.  The mainstream churches have investments and participate in the same markets as everyone else.  Absolutely, stipends and pensions have to be paid but this does raise questions about where the interests of the churches lie.  For some churches, aware of the criticisms, the stance is of quiet embarrassment.  For others, wealth is evidence of God's favour and so should be shouted about.  So, we hear about American mega-churches which include shopping malls, branches of McDonald's, etc.  We also hear from time to time of instances of corruption as TV evangelists are found out.

Which brings me to the second problem.  Whilst the emphasis of formal talks tends to be upon (broadly) Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry, these are not the divisions in the church I really feel.  I can live without sharing communion with my Catholic friends because we can share in other things and when I see them take communions I see fellow Christians declaring their faith as I do when I take communion.  I appreciate some people have more of a problem with this, eg interchurch families, but this is how I feel - a consequence of my history.  What I find difficult to accept is the fundamentalist praxis of some Churches.

My problem is not with their politics so much as their theology.  When I read their words or learn of their activities I see a fantastic interpretation of scripture which places our disparate understandings of communion in the shade.  We might not be able to agree about communion but broadly we can agree about right and wrong.  There are Christians who I believe call evil good and good evil.  I'm sure they feel much the same about me.

If only it were as simple as saying these people are not really Christians and so do not need to be included in the one church.  The problem is this is exactly what they are saying about me and the other mainstream churches.  We don't accept their partial reading of scripture and so we are the ones who are damned in their eyes.  How does it help if I believe the same about them?  Fundamentalism is premised on the rejection and marginalisation of others. 

Our vision of one church comes adrift on this issue.  Do we abandon marginalised people in order to embrace fundamentalist Christians?  I think not.  So, what can we do?  Especially compromised as we are.

The criticisms from atheists will be different.  They seem to be saying Christians are all the same.  They do our ecumenism for us!  But even though we are compromised, we are not the same. 

Take the Church of England.  A major problem for some Christians in the English ecumenical movement is that it is an established church.  Undoubtedly it is compromised in terms of its investments but I think it unfair to take this critique too far.  This church does not accept there is one reading of scripture.  Historically it is a compromise between many theological perspectives from Catholic to Evangelical, taking in various streams of liberal and radical theology.  Further, its relationship with the state is expressed through its parish system which in principle makes it the voice of everyone in the country.  It is as representative as any church can be not of the state understood as government but of the state understood as the people.  Just like Dr Johnson's observation of the dog walking on its hind legs, the point is not that the Church of England does these well so much as it attempts to do them at all.

These pillars of the Church of England and wider Anglican movement are under attack.  This is expressed through those who will not compromise on their theological positions, eg women priests or sexuality.  Also those who would erode the parish system in the name of mission.  These enthusiasts should take note of the words from the song 'you don't know what you've got till it's gone'.

Fundamentalists and Deregulation

St Mark's Centre for Radical Christianity is another theological institution in Sheffield.  I'll post about it at a later date.  A few years ago they invited Madison Shockley to lecture on Ascension Day and most of the following is something of what I remember of his lecture.

The first born again Christian to be President of the United States was Jimmy Carter (Democrat).  Evangelical Christians voted for him and were disappointed by his liberal approach.

During his Presidency the Christian right started to talk seriously with the Republicans.  It is not known what was said but perhaps if any of the Christians raised the question of whether it is ethical to withdraw benefits from the poor, they were told that it was not ethical for people to be dependent upon the state.  The Republicans in any event entered into a pact with the fundamentalist Christians and probably many other Christians followed on in the belief that rhetoric about issues such as abortion outweighed questions of justice for the poor.

The next President was the Republican Ronald Reagan who was not a Christian. 

The next was George Bush Senior and a Republican, an Episcopalian and not born again.

The next time they struck lucky with the born again Bill Clinton (Democrat).

In fact it was only with George W Bush that they got their born again Republican President and look what a success he was.

The point of this is to show that American politics has been dominated by an alliance between fundamentalist Christians and libertarian conservatives for several decades.  Whilst their grip may have been slightly loosened in the last elections they are still a force to be reckoned with. 

What do they want?  I suspect the fundamentalist Christians want their moral agenda enforced.  It is interesting that even after Bush, abortion is still legal and now there is an alliance around abortion reduction. 

For the conservatives though there is no ethical agenda.  Their goal is deregulation.  They want to destroy the liberal state so that the liberal agenda will never again be a possibility.  The current financial crisis is a direct result of this conservatism in the States and its analogues around the world.  

We all, Christians and non-Christians, need to recognise that deregulation is a deliberate political strategy to conceal what is going on in the economy.  Governments are unable to do anything about climate change whilst they are beholden to these powerful elites.  Unmasking the truth should be a priority for the churches; why are they so slow to act?

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.

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.

Types of Investment 3: Equity

One recurring theme in this short review of types of investment is the way in which once a method leaves behind the personal, or becomes divorced from the local, it becomes exploitative.  All these approaches have their strengths where they are generated by real relationships.  The problems start once they fall into the hands of large scale bureaucracies. 

So, gifts become grants (gifts with strings), loans become easy credit and equity becomes shares. 

Equity on the local scale is where someone with finance invests in an enterprise so that their investment rises and falls with the fortunes of the enterprise.  The finance might come from someone who is a sleeping partner or better from a partner who is able to lend their experience to the enterprise.

The style of conversation that parallels this approach is reflection.  This is where a genuine attempt is made by all to view the matter at hand from the point of view of the other.  A simple equitable arrangement where one person invests in another's enterprise means that both will share the failures and successes of the enterprise.  On any small scale, this will be the key to the success of the partnership.

Although shares are a species of equity it is not hard to see they are equity with the relationships taken out.  The focus is not on the success or failure of the enterprise; this is left to others who make decisions in the interests of the share-holders.  Shares are brought and sold with no regard for the fortunes of the shared enterprises.  The credit crunch is in part a result of this distancing from reality - as the trade in shares has become more complex, their connection with reality becomes increasingly tenuous.

But in essence, a genuine equity relationship is for mutual benefit and is not a form of exploitation, such as found where interest is charged.  To go further along this road is to enter a different understanding of the economy and I will describe this in my next post.

Types of Investment 2: Loans

One thing churches need to be aware of today is the rather bizarre situation their congregations are likely to be in.  Many, perhaps the majority, are likely to be in debt.  We are familiar with mortgages; indeed many people don't think about them as debt.  But in recent years it has been much easier to take out loans particularly through credit cards.  The sale of debt to people who can't afford it and sometimes don't even want it has become a major problem.

The paradox is that those church members who seem wealthy may in fact be in greater poverty than those who seem poorer.  The wealthy are those who live within their means, so a person who has refused easy credit may have a less opulent lifestyle compared with someone who is living almost solely on credit.

Loans are an effective way of getting things done.  Investment in a business can make a great deal of difference.  The problem with the current credit crunch is that banks are no longer able to make them.  The reasons for this are something of a mystery to me.  Why are interest rates so low?  Surely banks are more likely to make loans when there are high interest rates? 

In the past there have been many instances of boom and bust.  These bubbles have been caused by speculation in railways or even tulip bulbs.  This time it was cheap credit.  How was it that no-one predicted that selling credit to those who can't afford it would cause problems?  At one time thrift was seen as a virtue, presumably the churches no longer think so.

In general though loans are a better approach to investment than gifts or grants.  They certainly don't encourage dependency, except when sold to people who can't afford them.  The principle is that there is a relationship between the creditor and the debtor.  The more personal that relationship is perhaps the better - it is in the interest of the creditor that the business does well, or there is a possibility the loan will not be repaid. 

Some creditors are more helpful than others and there will be the possibility of rescheduling a loan.  Others are less helpful, loan sharks being a popular example of this type.  The problem though is that the creditor does not have any real interest in how the loan is spent.  So long as it is repaid with interest.

I suspect it was Calvin who helped the churches lose their concern about usury.  It is interesting to ask ourselves why the churches have so little problem with interest these days but probably not a cause that would engage many people.

I see a parallel with the type of conversation Kahane calls dialogue.  Here both sides have a relationship and are prepared to listen as a prelude to putting across their pre-determined point of view.  There is no real commitment to each other.  Similarly a loan is a relationship which has no commitment beyond the loan itself.  It has utility but no real capacity for transformation.

Types of Investment 1: Gifts and Grants

Over the last few weeks my neighbourhood has been undergoing a traumatic experience.  Nearly 8 years ago, we were selected to receive £52 million over 10 years of government money under a programme known as New Deal for Communities.  I joined the Board about a year ago and gradually a story has been unraveling.  At some point during the lifetime of the programme, the Board were told that most New Deals around the country would underspend and so if it spent more than it should in the middle of the programme, more money would be available later.  Somehow in these later years no-one (neither the Board nor the council (the accountable body) nor the government office) noticed the planned expenditure equaled more than £52m.  The government during this time of recession decided to claw back the underspend. Of course there was nothing in writing.

A few weeks ago the Board reluctantly agreed to terminate the programme early and so about 120 people have been made redundant a year earlier than they expected.  I tell this sorry story not to apportion blame but to highlight some of the issues around this sort of grant related culture.

Money invested in a neighbourhood will always do some good.  Of course it will.  The problem is that all grant aid is time limited and finding alternative funding for established projects is difficult.  The reality in my neighbourhood is that some valued work will disappear.  But let us not forget, the problem has simply been brought forward a year, had the programme run its course, many of the same projects would have terminated.

Usually grant aid is tied to outputs, very often the objectives of the funding body will determine the activities of the applicant organisation.  This way voluntary hours are recruited into government programmes; achieving outputs replaces the original purpose the applicant organisation. 

These two problems, dependency and mission creep, are both consequences of a culture that is driven by grant aid.  An additional problem with programmes such as New Deal is that they are saying to neighbourhood organisations, 'here's a sum of money, you work out what to do with it'.  This approach does not encourage quality, it increases dependency and drives community groups in directions they would not normally go.

For Christians giving is seen as a good thing and hospitality as a virtue.  I think Christians are mistaken to see hospitality as gift, when we do that our giving becomes something that encourages dependency.  Conservatives would agree with me so far but, as I will show over the next few days, the idea of the gift is the wrong model.  The generosity underlying Christian mission should not be seen as simply a gift.

Yesterday, I suggested my list of types of investment paralleled Kahane's list of types of dialogue.  Gifts and grants parallel his first type, downloading.  Either the giver doesn't care and walks away or the giver is purchasing outputs.  At best it is a one way relationship and although much good work can be done it rarely has lasting significance.  Just as in downloading conversations nothing new is learned.  The neighbourhood soon forgets the project and simply moves to the next source of funding, responding according to their new funding body's whim.