Exploring Ecumenism

Introduction to the Churches and Economics

Yesterday, the cashier at my bank made me an irresistible offer (I resisted it).  For only £8.50 per month I could receive benefits of up to £500 a year.  One reason I resisted it was that I'm not convinced, especially with low interest rates that I'd actually gain anything.  Also I'm of a generation when banking was free unless you went overdrawn.  But there was also another reason that was nagging at the back of mind.

I heard or read that traditional banking (making loans and charging interest) is not very profitable - this is one reason why bankers in recent years have taken the risks they have - in a search for more profit.  It also rings true in the light of the reason we have credit unions.  Small loans to poor people are not possible for large banks because they are too expensive to administer.  You can see the attraction of £8.50 per month per customer to the banks (and why the cashier was so keen to sign me up).  Come to think of it, she also gave me her card, which suggests she's under commission. 

The story of the start of the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh is worth reflection.  Muhammed Yunus, at the time a lecturer in an economics related subject, visited a rural village.  He met a woman who made baskets; sale of her baskets realised enough money to feed her family and to purchase the raw materials the next day.  Yunus realised that if she had a very small loan it would make her independent of the dealer.  He asked his students to research how many others were in a similar position.  When they added up the amount in loans the village needed it equaled less than the cash Yunus had in his wallet.

A letter in The Times yesterday claimed our problems as a nation were down to lack of moral fibre.  To qualify for lack of moral fiber as far as I can tell you should be young and / or poor.  How do we describe the person who sells mortgages to people who cannot repay them?  Building societies are not permitted to do that, many of them turned into banks in recent years; unashamed asset stripping. 

What do we make of the wealthy people with enormous bonuses awarded for asset stripping?  How much of the government money given to bail out banks for their mistakes has found its way into off-shore accounts? 

This combined erosion of organisations based on mutuality and of the assets of this country, for which people have for several decades been awarded, has disabled our government and undermined confidence in leadership.  President Obama has an enormous task as the state of the US economy is down to the Republican project to destroy government institutions and asset strip them for personal gain.

Raise this in our churches and we are told that some Christians are bankers and so we cannot criticise those who are trying to inject some morality into the system.  This is not good enough.  We need a more sophisticated approach than this.  There may be several reasons why the churches sit on the sidelines; it's time we identified these reasons and examine them together.

Participative Methods 3: World Cafe

I'm not sure whether yesterday's post came over a bit negative.  I certainly don't want to give the impression participative methods are easy but at the same time I want to encourage their use.  These posts are meant to draw attention to a variety of methods and to offer some sense of how I view them at present.  My message is experiment, recognise your limitations and that you will improve over time.  Share leadership and work with more experienced people if and when you can.

In many ways World Cafe is a more flexible and straightforward participative method.  Broadly people sit in small groups, discuss a topic which might be the same for each table or vary from table to table.  From time to time people move around, leaving one person behind to introduce new people to what has been discussed so far.

The method is very flexible and there are a variety of ways of varying it and using it.  This is the method we used at the Participation in Church conference a couple of weeks ago. 

The main difficulty with this approach (apart from the usual one of actually being participative) is resources.  Ideally you need to accommodate everyone in a single large hall around small round tables, room for 4 at each table is ideal.  You also need paper table cloths and various flowers, sweets, toys, information sheets to encourage the right sort of atmosphere.  One advantage of working with churches is that there is no shortage of large halls.  The ubiquitous trestle tables are a bit of a problem but I am told the method can work quite well with them.  Round tables optimise distance and so help with hearing and of course look better.

For more information, there is a website about World Cafe and a book The World Cafe by Juanita Brown and others.

Participative Methods 2: Open Space Technology

I first encountered Open Space Technology (OST) about 7 years ago.  It was being used by the Primary Care Trust in East Rotherham.  It was introduced as a method that could be used in a couple of hours in a community setting.  I used it a few times in short bursts, with various groups engaged with community planning.

At the time I was familiar with a few participative approaches and so OST appealed to me.  Also, it seemed to work well with local people.  As is often the case with participative methods, it is the professionals who struggle with the method.

I found this was much more problematic when I tried to use it in an ecumenical context.  I have run a couple of 24 hour sessions and I have learned a few hard truths.  One is that this method is very difficult to facilitate.  Second, it really needs to be run by people who voluntarily agree to take part in it, groups have difficulty grasping the method when unprepared.  Also, the short sessions seem to work quite well but once you go for a long session, it is perhaps best to go for 2 or 3 days.  One day produces a lot of useful and insightful information but does not allow time to move those taking part to the action phase.

The paradox seems to be that people in neighbourhoods find it liberating from the agendas of the various workers in the community who normally set the agenda.  Professional people have strong agendas and find freedom to explore them profoundly threatening.

My conclusion is that OST is a powerful method where people contract to work in that way in advance.  It is less effective where participants are unprepared.  I by no means wish to write it off as a method to be used in ecumenical contexts;the challenge is to find a context in which it will work well.  Maybe more experienced facilitators than I could make a better job of it, but if we are seeking means to get started with participative methods, OST may have limited practical application.

For more information, Harrison Owen, the founder of OST, is the author of Open Space Technology: A User's Guide.  There is also a useful website that covers contemporary use of the method.

Participative Methods 1: General Principles

Facilitation of participative conversations, using any method, requires an understanding of the principles.  This is not just an intellectual understanding but a feel for what is genuinely participative.  This means you need experience.

I don't think we should allow this to stop us experimenting.  There is a shortage of people with this experience and the only way to get it is to decide to work participatively.  How might an inexperienced person make a start?

• Accept that you will get it wrong, initially frequently and even when experienced, from time to time.
• Wherever possible work with a partner.  Give each other permission to be critical and to point out where you each fail to work particpatively. 
• Watch others at work and take whatever training is on offer.

It is difficult to get information about some methods because the practitioners believe they should not be used without training.  Whilst this may be frustrating it is good policy to heed their warnings.  Nevertheless I think there are a few things to consider when you set out to work more participatively.

• Churches are full of very inspirational and engaging leaders, who do not work participatively.  You need to prepare for any event by explaining to these people what you are trying to achieve.  My experience is that it is not worth going to the trouble of organising anything participative if these people do not support you.  They can wreck an event in seconds and will do so if they are not fully supportive.
• Simply rearranging the furniture can make a big difference.  A move from chairs in rows (an arrangement which enables control of a meeting) to chairs around small tables can make a big difference.
• But don't stop there, think through the changes to ways of working this layout might facilitate.
• Not everything is most appropriately dealt with in this way.  Plan a programme that moves between different approaches depending on what needs to be achieved.
• Working with a team means you can have a team member on each table.  They can explain what is expected at each stage and report back on how participation might be improved.
• Experienced resource people should be held in reserve.  Sometimes experienced people will dominate a table.  Where people are exploring an issue, why not hold the resource people in reserve, to go to a table when requested?
• The information generated needs to be recorded.   Make sure the people present understand that this information belongs to them and will be made available to them.  This is not difficult in this age of Web2 applications.

Churches and Paradigm Shifts

One of the interesting things about the credit crunch is the idea, expressed by politicians and the media, that what we need is a return to normality.  The normality they mean has lasted for a couple of decades at the most and the present crisis is a move to a new normality.  The economy is correcting itself and when this happens it is always painful.

What we are experiencing is of course a change of paradigm.  The problem is that we don't yet know what the new paradigm will be.

I expect sooner or later someone will tell me the approaches I recommend in this blog are secular in origin.  My response to this is that many of the methods and approaches freely used in our society originated during past paradigm shifts and from the churches' reflection upon changes happening around them.  Examples of the type of thing I mean include the growth in nineteenth century working class movements, the origins of community development and a great deal of management theory.  I have already written about one of these and may write about the others at some future time.

The churches have as many problems with shifts in paradigm as everyone else.  Our focus should not be on whether various methodologies are Christian or not; often when we look it is our own approaches that are returning to us, perhaps developed out of recognition by conversations with the secular world.  Our focus should be upon our response to the next shift.

The problem is that when a shift in paradigm is needed it can be difficult to see a way forward whilst the mind is with the old paradigm.  Churches may be well positioned to see beyond the old paradigm precisely because they cherish older traditions.  It is different mindsets that are needed in times of change.

The focus of a range of traditions on the same problem may have great potential to bring about real change.  It is time we as churches together attempt to do this, whether or not we think we've done it before.  To those who think I should be writing about the need for a movement of the spirit; that is exactly what I'm saying.  The spirit moves where it wills and so we should not close any door because we fear certain approaches are not Christian enough.

Unity seen through a Common Focus

When we contemplate the growth of new churches, outside of the mainstream traditions as well as the numerous schisms that have afflicted the church; it is hard to see them as evidence of the truth of the Gospel claim.  The reasons for the splits in the churches, not to be confused with the diversity of Christian observance, are complex.  But the problem with lack of unity is seated in denial of the legitimacy of other Christians. 

How can the churches claim to be co-creators with God when they are not united?  The act of creation implies a unified approach.  This is a question Christians have faced since the day of Pentecost.  If we are saved, why do we continue to sin?  Wesley's doctrine of sanctification is an example of an attempt to address this problem.

Here are a few comments on the problem:

• We should not confuse sin with the doctrine of sin.  Sin is a useful word for that which enslaves us.  The doctrine is actually a doctrine of liberation because it is essential to identify what does enslave us.
• Consequently, awareness of sin tends to lead to liberation, particularly awareness of personal sin.  This is called humility, and is an essential step on the road to liberty, both personal and corporate.
• The splits and hatreds between Christian traditions are there because in this world the churches are subject to sin like other institutions.  Ecumenism names the sin and draws attention to the urgency of addressing it.
• If we can find a common task, our diversity becomes an advantage - it is only when  the churches lack a common task they encounter difficulties.
• The act of co-creation is as subject to sin as everything else.  We need to take care with the results of any generative conversations, to test the outcomes.  For the churches, one positive sign is their common focus and willingness to collaborate.

What our Church Leaders think about Ecumenism

It seems to me the key to successful ecumenical conversations is to find common ground.  The reasons for distrust between traditions are varied.  Last time I considered the position of the new small churches and their relationship with the mainstream churches.  The approach I took will be controversial but it is a powerful argument to say that ecumenical relationships are the mark of a true church.

This is a brief note to draw attention to a recent exercise carried out by the Church Times and the Baptist Times.  They asked the leaders of the five main traditions in England, namely the Church of England, URC, Baptist, Roman Catholic and Methodist churches, five questions about their views of ecumenism. 

Follow the link to read an overview and then another link will take you to a page where the details of what each leader said can be found.

The message is that the leaders of our main churches, do not share the emphasis of many ecumenists on formal talks.  Their focus is on local churches.  They all claim to value formal talks although the impression is they are not where the church leaders' hearts are.

This simultaneously opens up some common ground with the new churches but also raises questions about how the conversations of local churches can have the rigour of the formal talks.  For the mainstream churches, allowing for differences of emphasis, it is most important that the church engages in ecumenical talks as a whole church.  The question for them is not whether they should do this, but how.

Problems with 'Free Church Ecclesiology'

But why the emphasis in unity?  Why is it so important that the churches are united?  One common answer to this question is to quote John 17:21, 'that they may all be one ... so that the world may believe that you have sent me'.

This is not in itself an argument.  The main difficulty I have with it is that I don't know what is meant by 'be one'.  It has been understood by ecumenists as structural unity.  Others argue that the traditions should be united in mission and that church structures are helpful in terms of being organised but do not need to be reconciled for Christians to be united.  The problem with their view is that without structural unity, at least as a goal, it is too easy to drift, to lose sight of the goal of unity.

There are of course fast growing churches that have opted out of major church structures and indeed out of the goal of unity.  These are varied churches covering fundamentalist through to radical theologies; including Pentecostal, evangelical, charismatic and house churches. 

I heard a lecture in January 2004, given by Doug Gay, called 'The Very Hungry Caterpillar'.  He described these churches as having 'free church ecclesiology', self-certified and uneasy about unity and catholicity.  He named a few churches where this approach to church had gone wrong, in some instances through abuse of church members.  This can be a heavy price to pay for their failure to find a place in the mainstream churches.  The mainstream churches have a degree of historical wisdom; they know how to negotiate issues of power and conflict.

He went on to state that he believes God provides for the church and that the new churches sometimes refuse to accept what God provides.  He gave three examples of the way new churches might do this:

1. Inertia - the belief that we are the last Christians.  The refusal to believe that God has anything new to offer the church.
2. Amnesia - the belief that we are the first Christians, and so do not believe that there is anything of value in the established traditions.
3. Xenophobia - the belief that we are the only Christians - a refusal to accept the richness and diversity of human culture.

He finished by saying he believed that unity belongs to the future and so it is a union of churches that we should be seeking.  Openness to God is through openness to all churches; it shows that you are in fact a church.

This was a stimulating challenge to the new churches but is there any chance of the older churches meeting them on common ground?  If the challenge to new churches is to take on board the wisdom and experience of the mainstream traditions, what challenges are being made to the older traditions by the new churches?  I will attempt to answer this question in my next post.

Co-creation

I want to go back to some of my earliest posts today.  I have traveled a long way over the last few months and it might be worth looking back to some of my earlier posts about conversations.  I made the link between the first verses of John's Gospel and conversations.  And then to the first verses of Genesis, where I argued we have the record of a conversation between God and creation.  And then on to explore conversations between people, between people and God, between people and the universe.

The context of all conversations is the great conversations underlying the whole cosmos.  Ecumenical conversations are a small part of this ongoing exchange.  We need to understand this in more depth.

Is it possible that Christianity and science might converge on a new understanding of the cosmos based on conversation?  The Newtonian world view is a mechanical worldview.  There is a subject and an object.  The subject initiates and the object behaves in predictable ways.  We may not have enough information to make the prediction, but in principle it is predictable.  If we understand enough about any system we can control it.

The problem is that this is not true.  We are a part of the universe and our actions have a profound effect; much of it not seen by us.  Most profoundly, when the universe responds to us, we respond to it.  We are a part of the things we try to change.  We are not controllers of machines but participants in a conversation.

As we take part in generative conversations, we find the world forms around our actions.  We are no longer outside of it, determining a preconceived outcome, but a part of something generating a new world.  We should think of ourselves not as controllers, but as artists.  The artist has to know their materials and respond to their materials just as their materials respond to them.  So, it is with God in creation, from our perspective God changes as God responds to creation.

When we take part in the conversation, we are co-creators with God.  This is the nature of the calling God has for the many church traditions, the Body of Christ.

Participative Approaches for Ecumenical Conversations

If participation is to help us with our ecumenical conversations, it must move us to a lived vision of ecumenism.  We must understand participation to take place both within formal settings and outside of them.  I think conversations in formal settings (by which I mean any event planned for conversations to take place; don't confuse this with formal talks) are important and indeed the lifeblood of ecumenism.  Without these conversations, we are likely to lose focus.  But outside of those formal settings, there is still a need for conversations and the use of participative methods.

So, what I want to do is offer some understanding of the scope of participatory methods. 

1. Good facilitation skills can enhance participation in almost any meeting.  Of course, it is not necessary to use participative methods at absolutely every meeting.  Good facilitation identifies the most appropriate participative methods to use.    But developing a culture of participation can help almost any sort of meeting to be more participative.  I have seen both more or less participative PowerPoint presentations, for example.  Sometimes, it is a question of checking out basics such as the layout of the room. 
2. There are a number of participative approaches to conferences.  The ones I am most familiar with are Open Space Technology and World Cafe.
3. Social research can be conducted through participative approaches.  The best known approach is Participatory Appraisal.
4. Community development requires participatory approaches and almost any of the methods listed here can be used.  A good example of a method that has grown up to this purpose is Citizens' Organising.
5. Finally, consultancy can be conducted in more or less participatory ways.  A good example of George Lovell's non-directive approach to consultancy.
6. Finally, the big change over recent years, has been the growth of Web2 applications.  One reason formal talks have dominated ecumenism, has been the difficulty bringing together the results of talks at more local levels.  At present, the internet is not used in any formal way even to bring formal talks at the centre to the attention of local churches.  This will change as the churches learn how to pool insights from all levels, reported through blogs and networking sites.

Over the next few weeks I shall visit each of these methods in more detail.