For Good: The Church and the Future of Welfare by Samuel Wells et al Reviewed

There are various stories around the decline in the significance of the Church in the UK. Some start in the mid to late 1800’s, others focus on the first world war, some look at the changes in British society in the late ‘60’s whilst more argue it is to do with the introduction of the welfare state in the mid 1940’s. In truth it’s probably most appropriate to draw a timeline which marks all of these as significant stages in a process, which have differing significance to different denominations and churches. For Good: The Church and the Future of Welfare by Samuel Wells with Russell Rook and David Barclay lay out an argument which focuses on the argument that the introduction of the Welfare State was the key point of significance. Hence this book engages with a re-evaluation of how the Church can engage with the review of welfare occurring 75 years after the Beveridge Report.

The significance of the date they choose to effectively link secularisation to matters, because it underlines a narrative which can be used to argue that the state has come in and replaced some of the functions of the church in providing care, education of the young and support those in distress. To argue that these were the “right functions” for a church in a society one has to buy into the argument, to some extent at least, that Christianity should have a privileged position in society where it is the recognised provider of essential services. Therein lies my problem with what is excellent a really good book which has some excellent arguments which I will go on to talk about.

There is a catch 22 situation which was excellently illustrated by Steve Chalke, of the Oasis Foundation, at the launch event for this book, which took place at Lamberth Palace. At the conference Chalke, one of the speakers, spoke about the need for infrastructure and governance to be in place for effective engagement at a national level in the provision of goods and services. He identified why, certainly regarding infrastructure, the Church of England was able to do this in ways others aren’t because they are a state church with a parish system. Yet, he was the only speaker that day to talk of spirituality rather than the Church/ Christianity or occasionally faith. The Oasis hub project in Birmingham which is one of the case studies in the book is also the only one which stems from the values we associate with spirituality and Christianity rather than from a congregation looking at how they can help the community, and seeks to work in a truly collaborative way where people are done “with” rather than “to”. Whilst the others reflect these values this hub has this as it's primary purpose rather than an additional one, which a congregation has. His organisation is also the only one to have actively, and I use this word advisedly, seek to oppose institutional homophobia and trans-phobia rather than seeking to protect privilege by continuing to give people the right to discriminate. (see their about section on their website).

I underline these points at the start of my review because they are important in understanding the unease as well as feelings of joy and hope this book unleashed in me as I read it.

The book is essentially as is recognised a report, and as such is too short to be truly nuanced. At 90 pages it can only ever be an overview. Hence, I think having a set of underlying assumptions which are not properly argued.

However, as I said it is a valuable text which provides much hope and gives a useful tool for thinking through social engagement in the contemporary society.

The biggest contribution I think this book makes is seeking to move from a deficit approach (which is what Beveridge took) to an asset based approach. Where as Beveridge said there were five great giants to be slayed (and if you’re not familiar I would point you to You Tube and a rather useful revision guide from History Helper) Wells et al argue there are five great goods society should be aspiring to: relationship, creativity, partnership, compassion and joy.

We have to be careful when talking about these things because focusing on the assets can detract from identifying the reasons these are lacking in our society and dealing with the root causes. This is avoided by the approach of dealing with some of the root causes by focusing on the assets as active verbs rather than simply ends to be achieved. It is an approach which can be seen in the case studies given.

Another strength of the book is it’s recognition of the need for flexibility and fluidity in approaches of social action looking across the spectrum from contradiction to co-operation. This is talked about in a real way which recognises what might start as a protest can end up in active collaboration with those who were at some point in the process “the opposition”.

There are also practical warnings in the book regarding making sure a project is fit for purpose and time sensitive.

So would I recommend it, yes but with the caveats referred to earlier. I’d also recommend some useful supplementary reading to go alongside it though, in order to develop it into the most useful text it might be.

The first text is Sherry Turkle’s Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in a Digital Age. My reason for suggesting this as accompanying reading is that it looks at the way modern developments in technology are acting as barriers to the assets being discussed and diminishing these assets in our modern society. It is not a Luddite text, but rather it articulately discusses how our technology is a tool which we need to use well. Churches and Christians need to be as aware of their use of technology as other sectors.

The second text which I would suggest the reader engage with is Michael Volland’s The Minister as Entrepreneur: Leading and Growing the Church in an Age of Rapid Change. This book both provides a theological exploration of the approaches being advocated in the Wells text as well as some practical pointers on how to go about this. It also deals with some of the criticisms that might internally be leveled against congregations and ministers taking the type of approach advocated in the book.

A third text, for those wanting to see some different case studies and to examine how spirituality and supporting social action can come together would be The Pioneer Gift: Explorations in Mission edited by Jonny Baker and Cathy Ross. (Which I have also reviewed in the past on this blog)

My final piece of accompanying reading would be Prophetic Dialogue: Reflections on Christian Mission Today by Stephen Bevans and Roger P. Schroeder. This enables one to reflect on how context matters and how to shape this type of work as Christian but in a society which is more pluralistic than the Wells text might acknowledge. 

Gen X Curators With a Responsibility to Build Bridges

The local Methodist circuit Facebook page had an article by Sam Eaton entitled “59 Percent of Millennials Raised in a Church HaveDropped Out—And They’re Trying to Tell Us Why” shared on it yesterday. Just after I read it I picked up another article, this time on the BBC, by Lindsey Baker entitled “Whatever happened toGeneration X?” This latter piece is a book review for Tiffanie Darke’s, new offering “Now We Are 40: Whatever Happened to Generation X?” (a book I definitely want to get hold of). I came across these as I was revisiting Jonny Baker’s 2010 text, “Curating Worship”. In my mind there was a thread running through my mind as I read all of these things and that’s what I want to explore, in a rough form here.

The “Whatever happened to Generation X?” article is looking at that generation Douglas Coupland was talking about in his 1991 classic. It’s talking about my generation, the generation which theorists such as Liz Clutterbuck and Monica Janowski identified as the first “missing generation”. We’re the generation to whom those talking in “curating worship” belong and who their alt-worship initiatives were aimed at.

Within Baker’s there was a quote which really struck and resonated with me. She said:

“In Darke’s opinion, Generation Xers should be on a mission to provide a “bridge” between millennials and boomers, especially now that it has largely gone from being anti-establishment to being part of it. Generation X can play a healing role and help promote tolerance, is Darke’s message. “We all need to remember what was important in the pre-digital world, and before the toxic smartphone culture.”

As I read and reflected on Curating Worship I had to smile to myself. What was being described as being anti-establishment in that book has indeed largely become part of the establishment within the church. Jonny Baker has his key role with CMS and Michael Volland (not mentioned in the book but part of that whole group is now principal at Ridley). Me, I was somebody on the edge of that whole scene, not involved directly but picking up much of what was going on through Greenbelt and the web. These days I’m a chaplain who’s now reflecting on how in my job I use the skills I learnt back then from this whole genre. I'm also theologically working on how I mix that with what I’ve learnt from chaplaincy studies, contextual theology and the Methodist Church to produce a model of chaplaincy which enables me to engage with mission in a post-Christian culture.

As I read the material on the millennials leaving the church I realise that those of us who are Gen X and have now been absorbed to differing extents into the establishment do have an important role. We have something important to offer, in terms of working as a bridge particularly between people inside and outside the church. We are a generation who can talk two languages and interpret between them. We can listen with empathy and act as mentors. In spaces where the millennials don't yet have a voice we can act as the advocates to have them given a space at the table where they can then heard themselves. 

Political Night Prayer....Disturbing the Soul

120 + people turning out on a cold November evening in Birmingham for Political Night Prayer was not what I expected when I decided to go along. When I got there, I looked around and noted the faces I recognised and the “look” of those I didn’t. The room was full of those who might be described as veterans of activism. Yet, I think most of us were there because we were thinking “what now?” and none of us are quite sure how to deal with the current situation. We wanted Keith Hebden of the Urban Theology Unit/ Union (they’re in the middle of a name change) and others to guide us.

As the evening drew on I was struck by a range of things which both encouraged and disturbed me. First the encouraging: the room was full of people who wanted to come together prayerfully to look at where we go from here. The worship was well organised and in many ways beautiful. There was a clear will expressed amongst people to become co-ordinated in doing something to try and move forward from where we find ourselves at the moment. That was the positive…..

Now on to the stuff that disturbed me a bit, the stuff I want to use this post to help me unpack in my mind.

The key thing is we are looking at how to engage with a popularist uprising of the disengaged and the disenchanted. The “Islington Dinner Party” insult being used so much in the direction of the Labour Party leadership particularly is talking about an intellectual approach which is out of line with the thinking of many. Now, I want to say that I think, generally, this is an unfair slur on Corbyn. However, last night I got it a bit more. There is a relativism to things when it comes to class.

Hands up, I am middle class and in many ways might have that “Islington Dinner Party” insult thrown in my direction due to my academic background and that of many of my friends who I chat with on social media and so forth. Yet, last night I found myself feeling excluded and like I was in a room of “posh” people whose lives were obviously far removed from me.

In terms of worship one of the things was the singing Taize chants in a range of modern European languages, but none in English. Yes, the English subtitles were underneath but due to the complexity of the pronunciation, etc. I was unable to sing two of them. The short Latin one I could manage in full and then there was one where I could manage to sing one word over and over whilst leaving others to do the complicated bit. I did mutter to the person sitting next to me I wish I had a GCSE in some foreign language.



There was one folk style tune but nothing within the evening which might be described as “low culture”. I reflected on the difference between this and the way I had been able to really engage with the Shelter Carol Concert earlier in the week which for me had enabled me to comfortably engage than any faith based event I could remember. That event had included a bloke who had been in Dexy’s midnight runners singing “Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas” as well as the Choir With No Name singing in a style which I could enjoy. It had also included some high culture, but unlike the night prayer it mixed both together and I had felt comfortable rather than excluded.

Now please don’t get me wrong I’m not talking about differences in styles of worship here I’m talking about something deeper……….that gulf which seems to be getting wider in society between the “elite” and “the ordinary person on the street”. If we are seeking to bridge that and bring people together we need to do it in our worship as well as in our conversations.

That takes me on to Keith Hebden and what he was saying. Now don’t get me wrong I have a lot of time and respect for Keith and his theology and authenticity. Yet, when he was talking the nagging feeling of “the gap” was there. It spiked when he was talking about going to Lourdes, because he was passing. Now, he said it in the same way as somebody like me who doesn’t go trotting round France might talk about popping into Next when going through Birmingham, to just have a look around. For me and those who are more economically challenged than me the thought of just passing Lourdes was a complete anathema. Again if we are going to engage with what is going on we need to think about who “we” are and who “we” want to include.

As Keith spoke about acts of solidarity he had been involved in as well as the need to organise in order to mobilise I had mixed feelings. My thoughts moved between ungracious ones about hippies and into positive ones about there was something in this. I was conscious of the material in “Blueprint for Revolution: How to use rice pudding, Lego men, and other non-violent techniques to galvanise communities, overthrow dictators or simply change the world” by Srdja Popovic (of Canvas) and Matthew Miller, which is a book I would highly recommend to you. The need to go through a series of steps in the right order to achieve the change you desire rather than a void other people can exploit is so important.

As I sat reflecting on all this, and later woke in the night with my mind mulling these things over I was disturbed….I am disturbed. I could see the social movement theory in what he was saying but I was not sure I could see Christ.

We’re currently in Advent and I have already heard a variety opinion given on what that means in the current context; some talking of journeying, some talking of living in the now as if it were the what we are awaiting and some talking of time to be and reflect.

Something is bubbling up, something is disturbing, where is it leading? I am not sure, for now the best response seems to be to gather when we can, searching together for the answer. Taking opportunities like this to pray, but also engaging in organised and random acts of kindness as well as listening. Listening and hearing the voices of those we “other” through our middle-class elitism. That is where I am grateful for social media.

In his talk Keith Hebden talked about the way it does not give freedom of speech, it involves power given by others. This might be true, but it does give opportunity for us to hear those different voices from time to time if we stay connected to them when we may not like their posts. As for the alternative platform, he is suggesting. It will still have gatekeepers……these things always do.

 

So you see I have no answers either……in fact day by day I have less answers and a more disturbed spirit, but equally and paradoxically I do have more hope. I look at the way in which people are coming together and looking for what to do….rather than just what to say & there I do see Christ. 

The Invisible Church by Steve Aisthorpe Reviewed

Invisible Church by Steve Aisthorpe is a book I was eagerly awaiting having heard some good things about this study into Scottish Christians who were not church attenders. It is a book which has some excellent cartoon illustrations from Dave Walker whose work you may be familiar with.

The book acknowledges that it builds upon the work of Francis and Richter in Gone for Good? And Alan Jamieson’s A Churchless Faith. What it fails to mention is that both these books are somewhat dated now. Gone for Good was published almost 20 years ago and A Churchless Faith published in 2002 was followed up by Church Leavers: Faith journeys five years On in 2006. The texts this study is building upon are therefore not cutting edge. Yet, as Aisthorpe acknowledges they are still useful.

What I was surprised about was that he did not make mention of much of the work that has arisen on the subject of pioneering and which has itself build on Jamieson’s work. He does make passing reference to FreshExpressions and new monasticism as well as the recent Church Growth research but I felt the text could have made more use of some of the contemporary work. It was a particular loss that it was clearly produced just prior to Grace Davie updating her text on Religion in Britain since 1945 and producing Religion in Britain: A Persistent Paradox. I believe that reference to this updated text would have been particularly useful to the author.

The sample for the qualitative part of the study was relatively low at 30 interviewees. However, Aisthorpe does make use of other social survey material which had a much larger data set and used a random sample.

It was a highly readable book which was easy to work through, but perhaps that was part of the problem with it. It was too readable and seemed to lack depth. There were so many places where I wanted him to expand because he seemed to be only skimming the surface of some very important points.

One area where the book was very good was critiquing some of the stories and studies which have given rise to a range of assumptions about who leaves church and why. His myth busting chapter two was well balanced and made some important points which people who have not been closely following the development of the secularisation debate in the UK may be unaware of. This, summed up both the strength and the weakness of the book for me. It provides an excellent introduction to the current situation but for the more knowledgeable reader if felt sadly lacking.

The “So What? Questions and Activities for Further Reflection” sections at the end of each chapter were useful reminders and provided some useful tools for reflecting on my own practice as a local preacher and experience as a church member.

Whilst he is wary of the models of stages of faith as put forward by Fowler and others this topic is what he is really discussing in various forms in the chapters on “exit routes” and “life really is a journey”.

My favourite chapter was “A Longing for Belonging” which explored a range of issues related to welcome and inclusion in churches beyond those topics which are normally included.

The view of the church which came out of this was one which was realistic, if at times stark. I think these parts of the book are important for all of us to consider.

As with many others Aisthorpe is of the view we are at a pivotal moment in the history of the church and in the mist of something happening which we need to be ready to go with. He highlights some of the risks associated but this book explains why they are important.

Would I recommend the book? Yes, if you are new to the topic or if you are a local preacher, etc who needs a kick up the backside. As I say it is certainly very readable.

Constance - Review of the Film

This review of the Constance Coltman film was first posted yesterday on my review blog, but I think it fits with this blog too and so I am posting it here today, Sometimes when reviewing it is necessary to understand the constraints that the producer of a piece of art or product may be under. I think this is the case with Constance.

When watching this Kevin Snyman film I was disappointed at how short it was, expecting something much longer which covered more of the remarkable Constance Coltman’s life and work. Yet, I understand the film makers have done the best they can under difficult circumstances and it was a film I enjoyed.

Watching this URC supported film about the first woman to be ordained as a minister in an English mainstream religious denomination I was struck by the impact this woman had. However, the impact shown at the beginning was that she had upon the great and the good. I would have liked to have seen a condolence letter written by an “ordinary person”. Part of the reason for this is I had the privilege to hear talked of warmly by a now deceased member of her congregation, a man who had been ministered to by Constance and Claude in Wolverton (near Milton Keynes). Unfortunately there was no mention of her ministry there, even in the credits.

What this film did was show the strength of character it took for her to be accepted for training. Within this short film I find it most interesting what it says about call and how she had to show her call was beyond her gender yet God was also calling her in a significant way because of her being a woman in a situation which excluded women.

What I had not been aware of prior to watching it was her pacifism or her links to the suffrage movement, the latter of which of course would have been there but which I had never picked up upon previously.

I was caught between being pleased and frustrated that the hook for the film was her relationship with her husband Claude. Somehow turning this into a mini chick flick based around their love story seemed inappropriate for a feminist film, yet their relationship was pivotal to their ministry which was in many ways a joint ministry.

This is not a film about one woman though. It is a film which shows she had a prophetic voice and which is seeking to talk into our current situation.

I would therefore recommend you watch this film which is available to be shared on a not for profit basis under a Creative Commons licence and then share it. Constance’s story is one which should be shared and celebrated not forgotten.