Exploring Ecumenism

How Grants Erode Social Capital

About a month ago I posted an account of the early closure of the New Deal programme in my local area.  This post described some of the problems associated with this type of grant making and today I want to explore some of the problems in more detail.

Simply throwing money at disadvantaged communities is not necessarily the panacea governments expect.  The need to be seen to be doing something overshadows the need to do something worthwhile.  Overall, if you throw £52 million at a neighbourhood, it would be an exercise in monumental incompetence if it were all wasted.  Of course it hasn't been wasted, many sectors of the neghbourhood have benefited from competently run projects.

What the money has been unable to do is to support the sense of a neighbourhood pulling together; grant aid tends to be divisive.  Where there is money there will always be struggles for unilateral control.  Most of the conflict within communities are over control of resources. 

Most community leaders in Britain tend to be leaders of sections of neighbourhoods.  Very few aspire to be accountable leaders across the neighbourhood as a whole.  Or if they do have these aspirations, they lack the skills to achieve it.

Time and again I have seen collusion between unaccountable community leaders and council officers to bring large grants into an area to fund projects with no local mandate and often duplicating work that is already going on in the same neighbourhood.  Most of the time this is quite innocent, no rules are broken and everyone thinks they are acting in the 'interests of the community'. 

The damage is done to what is sometimes called social capital.  When attention is paid solely to funds and not to relationships, then social capital is eroded.  Large scale funding tends to support the exercise of large scale unilateral power.  The building of relationships, will tend to lead to the exercise of accountable power on a shared mutual or reciprocal basis.  This is when funding can be most effective on a community scale.

Social capital is divided into two main types, bonding and bridging (see chapter 3 of Journeying Out by Ann Morisy).  Bonding social capital is within groups and bridging between groups.  So, multi-cultural communities will often show strong bonding social capital and weaker bridging social capital.  Large scale unilateral unaccountable grant-making will drive wedges between groups in a neighbourhood as they compete for funds but can also erode bonding social capital as communities compete once funds are perceived as under the control of one unaccountable faction.

Organised neighbourhoods can be a focus for investment into neighbourhoods beyond the capacity of government funding.  They do this by building relationships with those who are in a position to effect real change.  Sadly, many neighbourhoods are so poorly organised they are unable to visualise what the possibilities might be.  There is a spiritual dimension to this but the churches seem to share the lack of motivation to explore what might be possible.  In my next post, I will describe one simple thing some churches are doing which can help with the growth of social capital.

Why Activism is not the same as Development Work

One of the frustrations I have found in recent years is the inability of some people who should know better to distinguish between community development work and local activism.

The activist is a campaigner who will work with others for improvements to their neighbourhood. 

The role and skill set of the development worker are quite different.  I have seen successful activists appointed to a community development role make a poor showing - indeed it is a mistake I made in my early days as a community development worker.  The activist who enters another neighbourhood as a community development worker and behaves as an activist is grotesque.  What right has anyone to enter other people's neighbourhoods and continue their own agenda on the behalf of complete strangers?  But even in their own neighbourhood this role confusion is chaotic.

The development worker's role is to help others to improve their performance as activists.  This means that development work requires a degree of objective distance.  The activist is focused on the success of their campaign.  The development worker is focused on the effectiveness of the activist.

The activist in community development worker's clothes takes over the role of local activists and makes it their personal campaign.  Such activists invariably over-identify with their adopted community organisation and take on the role of immortal.

This behaviour is far too common in British communities.  Why does it happen?  As community development emerged in the 1970s, it did so with great ideals.  Development workers paid lip service to empowerment of communities and did so by down-grading their own professionalism.  In consequence there has never been any career structure for development workers.  The skilled workers eventually move to other roles; they do not stay in development work. 

This means there are few role models and very little mentoring.  It feels like development work starts all over again every 5 years or so.  The overall lack of career development; of a corpus of sound development work meant that community development was an easy target for council cuts.  Today many organisations put workers in the community but few understand the basics, nothing is learned and passed on.  Our communities are littered with the remnants of projects finished before their time and increasingly frustrated activists starved of the stimulation development workers should bring with them.

The churches?  Much the same as everyone else.  Lay work is devalued and has no career structure.  Similar roles to community development such as mission or evangelism workers are similarly devalued.  Academics and pastoral workers are afforded more value.  It is long past the time for change.  I suspect for Britain it is too late and neighbourhood work is dead in the water.

The Difference between Volunteers and Activists

There is profound confusion in our neighbourhoods and churches about volunteering.  Community activities and most churchwork is not voluntary work. 

There is nothing wrong with voluntary work.  It is extremely useful for the charities and recipients of the hours of voluntary time people contribute.  It is also a classic example of self interest, volunteers benefit from voluntary work.  They benefit in many ways; a good example is the work of Impasse.

All of this is true of neighbourhood and church work.  But the difference is this ...  Voluntary work is like paid employment, without the pay.  It is in effect working for someone else.  Volunteers can pick and choose and so the work can sometimes be more fulfilling than paid work but in principle it is working for others.

Neighbourhood work is self-help.  It is like self-employment.  When I participate in my local community organisations (or local church) I am working for myself; it is more accurately work for the mutual benefit of my neighbours or fellow church members.  This means I don't simply work for an organisation, I'm a part of it and have an interest in its future.  Usually we call people who work in self-help organisations activists rather than volunteers.

Both volunteers and activists add to the social capital in their communities.  We need to keep hold of the distinction though if we want to understand what is going wrong in our communities and churches.

Immortality

One interesting characteristic of Citizens' Organising is its understanding of leadership.  In particular, the observation that good leaders are aware of their own mortality.

In June 1997, I spent a month touring the country visiting community economic development projects.  One in Moss Side was particularly impressive.  It was the only project I visited twice and I was shown around by a recently retired Anglican priest who had spent I think it was over 15 years immersed in the regeneration of that community.

One year later I was writing a paper about the visits and needed some more information about Moss Side, and phoned my contact.  A woman answered and told me my contact had had a serious stroke.  He could no longer communicate.  He had made preparations for the time he would no longer be there.  He had mentored the woman and left her as his stand-in.  She knew who I was and was able to answer my questions.

To put it bluntly leaders die.  A leader who is not mindful of this is invariably a bad leader.  I have seen this many time in community groups and churches, where a leader is effectively immortal.  They begin to personally identify with the organisation and lose the sense of where they end and the organisation begins.  It is a type of possession.

I would go so far as to say that immortality is not a Christian concept.  It comes from Greek Gods.  The Christian God is not immortal but eternal as are those who know the power of Jesus, his power in weakness.  It is our mortality that makes us human and helpful to others.  It is closely linked with the idea of humility.

On Churches, Management and Community Development

Some years before I discovered Citizens' Organising, I attended a seminar about American Community Development Corporations (CDCs).  This must have been in the late 1980s, before Community Development Trusts (CDTs) became well known in this country.

The CDCs were designed to focus on the finance of local regeneration through building up local assets, in contrast to organising's emphasis on relationships between people.  However, there was a strong relationship component which illustrates some of the cultural differences between Britain and the US.

I remember the speakers' assertion that whilst those in attendance at the seminar in Britain were community development professionals, in the States it would be the community activists and representatives of the funding foundations.  The paid community workers were more likely to be back at the CDC doing the admin!

The activists in the States took responsibility and did not hand it over to professionals.  Also their primary relationships were with the private sector, not local government.  In Britain paid professionals, provided usually by local government or the churches, are instrumental in raising funds by building relationships with statutory agencies. 

In the States, private companies set up charitable foundations which relate directly to local activists.

Two conjectures:

1. I am sure that US local activists learned their skills through the churches, through organising or similar activities.  This is why so many community development approaches show evidence of gospel values.  Once again we see the possibility of the Christian faith influencing change well beyond the formal reach of the churches.
2. The mixing of local activists and the private sector has resulted in a degree of mutual exchange of methods so many management approaches these days also reflect community development values.

I don't have a lot of evidence for these conjectures - maybe somebody has and will point me in the direction of it - but what I have experienced of radical theology, community development and management theory suggests the linkages are real.

This in no way denies the contribution of traditions other than Christianity but it is to suggest these linkages are significant and real.

Participative Methods 4: Citizens' Organising

This approach was first developed by Saul Alinski during the 1970s.  He worked amongst the poorest communities in urban United States and developed forthright methods of increasing the confidence of people trodden down by poverty.  He wrote two books Rules for Radicals and Reveille for Radicals.

After his death in the late seventies, his work was taken up by the Industrial Areas Foundation.  During the nineties IAF attempted to introduce organising to this country.  Although their may still be a few organisations around I believe the attempt has run into the sand.

I took their leaders training in 1992.  Whilst I had difficulty with the whole package they were promoting, much of what I learned has been helpful in my community development practice.  It is not a method that is written down anywhere.  This is a deliberate policy as it is supposed to be passed from practitioner to practitioner.  A good introduction to the principles is Robert Linthicum's Building a People of Power.

Here are a few of the basics:

1. Organising starts with the churches (and perhaps today any place of worship).  Why?  Because churches are there for the long haul.  In disadvantaged communities they can be the only institutions which maintain a presence. 
2. Organising is based upon an analysis of power.  The Statutory and Private Sectors (and to a lesser extent the professional voluntary sector) access power through organised money.  Communities cannot do this, as they have no money.  They access power through organised people.
3. Citizens' organisations are funded solely through the giving of their member organisations.  The reason for this is that accepting grant aid means they become beholden to the donor organisations.  They must unambiguously represent the interests of their members.
4. This is power tempered by love.  Power collectively exercised is used in a disciplined way so that no-one is marginalised.
5. The people involved are motivated by anger and self-interest.  Anger energises the leaders; ensures that things get done.  Self-interest is the deeper motivation that arises out of realising that I benefit when I work for the benefit of others.
6. Leaders are trained and developed but never occupy any position in the organisation for more than one year.
7. They work by ensuring that people with power, eg local politicians, business people, church leaders, etc are accountable to their own aims.  Citizens' Organisations have no permanent friends or enemies, the aim is always to develop relationships.

I think the problem in Britain was that it is culturally very different from the States.  We have a lot to learn but have not yet developed an approach to organising that suits our own culture.  The churches led with organising in the States and could in Britain lead in developing our own brand.  It is in fact an effective way of encouraging real sharing between churches and ecumenists could do worse than study this method.  I will explore the weaknesses of community development in England further in future posts.

Liberal and Radical Theologies Contrasted

I promised a few posts ago I would say more about St Marks Centre for Radical Christianity.  The photo is of St Mark's Church, Broomhill in Sheffield.  It is remarkable as a large growing church in the Church of England's liberal theological tradition. 

St Marks CRC has brought some major speakers to Sheffield who I would not have otherwise heard; they include Marcus Borg, Jonathan Dominic Crossan and Bishop Spong.

These speakers draw up to 400 people from all over the region and indeed the whole country.  This means the opportunities to hear them is in the form of 3 lectures in one day.  There has never been much oppportunity to interact directly with them.  Nevertheless I am grateful for the opportunity to be introduced to these writers and to hear them speak.

CRC contrasts markedly with the Urban Theology Unit, on the other side of the city.  UTU has always emphasised the importance of Christian lifestyle over simply reading and studying the writings of others.  Its approach is normally called radical theology.  This name is somewhat unfortunate these days as radical seems to have become equated with violent.  Indeed I gather the name radical was applied to literalist protestant Christians at the time of the Reformation!

Liberal theology is a species of literal reading of scripture where the task is to use critical methods to show that the texts were intended never to be take literally.  Classic liberal theology seems to be locked in endless debates with fundamentalists about whether or not Jesus walked on water or whether demons exist.  The complaint in the 60s, during the Honest to God debates, that the clergy believed what they were taught about biblical criticism in college but preached a traditional literalist interpretation of the faith is still very much alive today.  Modern liberalism is perhaps best found in the writings of Dion Cupitt and his Sea of Faith network.  It is marked by a rejection of what Cupitt calls supernaturalism.  This seems to be a dominant theological stream at the CRC.

UTU took its approach from liberation theology in Latin America during the 1970s.  It's priorities are solidarity with the oppressed and a recognition that theology is lived and so not the sole preserve of academic theologians.  It does not question whether or not Jesus walked on water but asks what the story means in the context we live in here and now.

So, these approaches are often confused and the words used interchangeably.  CRC seems to be something of a spectator sport compared with UTU.  I have found CRC immensely helpful and stimulating but also frustrating.  Once bitten by UTU's approach it is difficult to shake it off.

The Nature of Fundamentalist Theologies

There are three churches within walking distance of my home with over 2000 members.  The picture is one of them.  They spring up in my area because there are a lot of vacant industrial units.  According to Madison Shockley, they are the sign of things to come.  The spread of right wing fundamentalist Christianity to Britain from America. 

Whether this particular church represents precisely that theological viewpoint I don't know.  However, the new evangelical or charismatic churches are immensely successful and have doubtless been influenced by fundamentalism.  I will at some stage look at the evidence for changes in some of the churches in the fundamentalist diaspora but for now we need to note that the influence of this theology in the UK is definitely on the increase.

What I want to try to clarify is what exactly fundamentalism is.  Clearly this is a complex subject and I will return to it from time to time.  The aim in what follows is to identify some of the themes of fundamentalist history and theology. 

1. It seems likely one of the sources of fundamentalism was slavery.  To support slavery puts the Christian in tension with the Biblical text.  It will push them away from social action (sanctification) towards piety and reaction.  The focus will inevitably move towards a supernaturalist interpretation of scripture in an effort to avoid a focus on injustice.  The ethical agenda is focused on matters usually of sex or sexuality rather than the marginalised.
2. It is premised on marginalising or rejecting sections of society that don't fit with their worldview. 
3. A mark of fundamentalism is a rejection of fellow religionists.  Fundamentalist Christians therefore reject other Christians with different theologies.
4. All of this boils down to fear of the stranger.  This fear leads to exploitation by and dependency upon unscrupulous leaders.
5. The reading of scripture is profoundly dishonest.  So, for example, if the Bible disagrees with science about the age of the world, then each day in the genealogies can be interpreted as 1000 years.  The texts are distorted to fit science.
6. And science is distorted to fit a partial reading of scripture.  The obvious example is creationism and I will have a lot to say about this in later posts.
7. Fantastic interpretations of scripture, where a supernaturalist view is taken, such as rapture.  The idea of rapture of course reinforces the idea that the elect are to be saved and those at the margins are damned.

There are of course many fundamentalisms.  These are some examples of common characteristics.  It is important too to understand that not all the new churches are fundamentalist.  Fundamentalism influences many churches which are not themselves fundamentalist.  Some churches are finding fundamentalist theology unhelpful and are exploring new approaches. 

For ecumenists the inadequacy of fundamentalist theologies means that there are new opportunities  for collaboration with the new churches.  I've mentioned before the view that the historical churches can offer the new churches their wisdom.  These shifts may open up a renewal of ecumenical vision in the future.

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?