Reclaiming Hope by Michael Wear Reviewed

Reclaiming Hope: Lessons Learned in The Obama White Houseabout the Future of Faith in America is the new book from Michael Wear. It was the title of the a lecture he recently gave at the University of Birmingham, where he is a Honorary Research Fellow in the Edward Cadbury Centre for the Public Understanding of Religion.

I must admit I was wondering, after the lecture where Wear was clearly jet lagged, what the book would be like. I found it an easy but thought provoking read and not at all the academic text I was perhaps expecting.

This book can be described as part memoir, part political and social analysis and part reflection on Obama. It might be best described as thoughts from a reflective practitioner. 

The relationship between evangelicals, Catholics, staff in the Office of Faith Based and Neighbourhood Partnerships and more secular staff in other parts of the Obama team is examined here from the perspective an insider located in a particular place.

He is an evangelical and by virtue of his Democratic involvement, clearly a more progressive one. He also has a Catholic background coming from an Italian Heritage background. These aspects of identity which he outlines in the book clearly shape his perspective on a range of issues he looks at, particularly those which might be described as moral issues.

As an English reader I found this book useful to highlight where similarities and differences lie between our two cultures and the political and religious landscapes within them. Some like the way in which our welfare system means some of the debates have been dealt with and put to bed for many years (such as on the funding for contraception) are widely known and discussed.

Others like the similarities between the place Obama found himself on with regard to same sex marriage in his initial campaign and where many in the British system are now were enlightening. This latter issue is one where my analysis differs from the conclusions which Wear came from and perhaps also stem from the fact we appear to have different positions on the issue.

For Wear the fact that Obama appears to have had a different personal and professional position on same sex marriage during the first election campaign and part of that candidacy and then appears to reverse it when advocating the legitimacy of same sex marriage is very problematic. It is, he argues, an example of why we might then find ourselves questioning what is said by Obama on other issues. I want to argue that whilst there is some truth in that it is actually emblematic of how many evangelicals (and others) have behaved on this issue. It also illustrates how some of the problems that Bishops in the CofE (following synod’s decision not to take note face).]

If we go back to 2008 there were known to be many people, including some cis het national evangelical leaders on both sides of the Atlantic, who were privately of the view that same sex marriage in monogamous, loving relationships was ok, but none had broken ranks. Publicly, they towed the line they were opposed to these and so Obama was simply taking the standard line. He wasn’t lying as such….rather he was separating his private and public view on it.

Coming back to 2017, this tension between the private and the public view does not hold in the way it did. However, in some groups such as the CofE there has been a tacit approval of this being the way to hold consensus on an apparently controversial issue.

Whilst I don’t agree this is ideal it is why I don’t condemn Obama on this in the way Wear appears to. For those who might fall into this category of having “private” and contradicting “professional” views reading Wear’s analysis may be useful in seeing exactly what the problems with this are.

With regard to the subject of Hope, Wear ends with some thoughts regarding where we have come to. Within this section he talks about how in an increasingly secularised world we have put hope into politics which becomes problematic and turns politics itself into a religion. Within this thinking he gives an indication of how we have reached our current polarised situation with regard to politics and how we might move on from this.

Is this a book I would recommend? The answer is yes as a quite interesting book which can be quickly consumed by somebody with a general interest in politics and or religion. For those who might be looking at this in light of his work at Birmingham University and expecting something meaty, probably not. I enjoyed the book and learnt some things from it but it did not give the depth I hoped it would.

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. 

From Chocolate Makers to LGBT+ Tories...What I've Learnt

Recently I went along to a Stonewall/ LGBT+ Conservative event and been to various events and demonstrations protesting against the Tories whilst their conference was in Birmingham. I’ve also listened to Vince Cable give the Lunar Society Adrian Cadbury Lecture and read a really interesting book by Deborah Cadbury called Chocolate Wars. All of these things have had the impact of both challenging and encouraging me.

I’ll start with my visit to the Stonewall/ LGBT +Conservative event, which has raised more than a few eyebrows amongst many of my friends. I went along because this event also involved the Diversity Network of Lloyds Banking Group, and as part of the day job I am looking at how we join up chaplaincy in HE with encouraging students to take a holistic approach when thinking about employability. How do we encourage people to see the transferrable skills gained in areas of their lives which are often privatised? The exploration of personal values also comes into this.

As I listened to the panel discussion which included Maria Miller amongst others I was surprised by how comfortable I felt amongst this group who were in many ways so different to myself. It reminded me that whilst ideologically I hold opposite views to them on many issues particularly around social policy there is much that can be worked on across political lines and there are things which we do hold in common with people if we move beyond the headlines. They were talking about the need to reform the Gender Recognition Act in line with the recommendations of the Transgender equality inquiry report from the Women and Equalities Committee. They also picked up on the need for people to recognise the differences in experience of LGBT+ people in this country. The experiences of those living in rural areas as well as the increasing levels of hate crime throughout the country and specific issues relating to sport are examples of issues we all need to address.

The other thing which made me feel more comfortable was the general dress code. It was standard professional dress. As I looked around I pondered how different it had been to the left wing events I had been to over the event. Karl and I had dressed casually on Saturday evening as we went to the pub to listen to a great evenings entertainment by Bethany Black and Grace Petrie, at the Eagle and Tun, yet had still felt overdressed. On Sunday I had gone straight from preaching to protesting and was clearly over dressed for that, but…I realised that the extent I was overdressed depended upon who I was with. Amongst the TUC socialist demonstration, I was ridiculously different, however amongst the pro-EU protestors with whom I paused for a short while I was less over-dressed. The Refugees Welcome walk of witness (which didn’t even manage to be a demonstration due to the invisibility involved and which I left to go on the TUC one) was somewhere in between.

Dress was an interesting aspect of the historical material in Chocolate Wars. The move from embracing plain Quaker dress to a more relaxed approach which fitted with the world was part of a wider movement away from strict values based on the faith. Yet, as the very interesting and informative book shows dressing well didn’t mean the values were completely abandoned, it was a series of various individual decisions which saw the values of business becoming so divorced from those which were at the core of many of the chocolate businesses originally.

The question of what happened to these Quaker values and how we might be able to recover some of these values was essentially at the heart of what Vince Cable was talking about in his public lecture on “The Governance of Business and Their Relationships to Society Locally and Nationally”.

There were three areas which this lecture sought to address remuneration, ownership and social enterprises. As he spoke much of the lecture related to the frustrations Cable had felt as Business Secretary he looked at the problems with possible solutions to the issues he and his colleagues recognise exist within a world where free market capitalism has caused great inequality. For example when looking at the huge differences in remuneration he spoke of the problems caused by publishing pay ratios because many of the lower paid workers were sub-contracted in some companies.

He was scathing of the pension companies and the way in which institutional investors don’t hold them to account because they are focused on short term profit rather than long term social benefits.

With regard to having workers on the board, an idea which works elsewhere and reflects some of the practices which were part of the Chocolate companies and which our current PM is advocating he gave a warning. Beyond the multi-national nature of many companies now many firms are not unionised and so workers can become tokens working on behalf of the interests of the owners rather than representing the rights of those employed. Implicitly within this part of his lecture what he was saying was that we need to give a voice back to the unions rather than continuing to restrict them.

He was clear that we need to think about diverse forms of ownership if we are really serious about social responsibility. Within this he highlighted some of the problems which come out so strongly in the Chocolate Wars book of how ownership dilutes as the need to raise capital in order to expand increases and how do you lock capital in for future generations. He spoke about the role of private equity. Within this area the current story of the Eagle and Tun is interesting. The owner, a very nice Sikh gentleman, was explaining to us at the Anti-Austerity event with Petrie and Black,  how HS2 is threatening his business, this iconic pub. He doesn't want to take the short term approach and just make money from selling the land. He wants to have a business which will be able to take advantage of the development of the area and wants to be given a 25 year lease once the redevelopment has taken place in exchange for the building but has been told that is not possible. If we are serious about taking our country forward in a more socially responsible way we need to support businessmen like this who want to protect their businesses and the future of their families.

One thing which connected the Adrian Cadbury lecture to the LGBT+ Conservative event was the theme that we need to ensure that the discussion around Brexit does not mean the areas where we are making progress become lost or side-lined. This is something I think many of us believe. If we are truly going to move forward at this time of uncertainty I think that we need to identify, as these events did, the things that truly represent the shared centre ground.

On a final note in terms of recognising where my politics stand in this shifting area where I feel somewhat alienated by left and right these events gave me confidence that they stand where they always have. I am a socialist who stands in the tradition of people like Roy Hattersley and Barbara Castle. I am not part of the “far left” whilst I sympathise with much of what they stand for but neither am I part of New Labour. What I want is a modern politics based on values which are inter-generational and which can take in the shared concerns of people from left and right. 

Choosing When it's Really None of the Above

So I have my ballot paper for the Labour leadership election and I desperately want to write “neither of these two…..I want to vote for someone who represents neither the Corbyn camp or the parliamentary Labour Party but has the best aspects of the two.”

If there had the chance I would have liked to vote for Yvette Cooper or somebody of that ilk who actually represented where I am coming from. That is I want a candidate who stands a chance of winning votes from middle England and being media friendly whilst at the same time displaying socialist Labour principals.

What I am faced with instead is a choice between Corbyn and Smith. Whilst the former’s policies generally attract me I am unimpressed with the way it seems that he has let John McDonnell manipulate him.

I also believe that there is no way he can deliver us from a series of Tory governments over the next decade. The reason for this is partly because of the way the media are portraying him but it is more than that. He is focused on building a social movement and that is what he has successfully been doing. However, social movements are not political parties. With the system of democracy we have the key role of social movements is to act as lobbyists influencing those in parliament and bring about change outside of the chamber too. Social movements are effectively the way we let Parliament know we want them to act in different ways to those they are proposing or to take notice of issues which have been ignored.

With regard to the latter. I believe he has also allowed himself to become the puppet of others who have ambition to take power in the future and wanted a fall guy to be the interim leader. He is now saying whatever appears to be necessary to gain the leadership and has shown himself not to be a consistent and principled politician.

Whilst considering who to vote for I have also been thinking of the views of those around me. Many of the most principled people I know are supporting Corbyn because he stands for so much of what they have campaigned and worked for over the years. He is the change they want to see.

Then there are those who are in a similar position to myself and are generally going for Smith because there is the feeling we need to rebuild with somebody the PLP will work with.

However, beyond these are the marginal voters I have listened to over the years. These are generally people I have sometimes shared offices with or listened to as they have chatted with their friends on buses and trains. I know the concerns they have for themselves and their families. Concerns which in the last election made many of these people vote Tory when they were clearly undecided. They are often the people UKIP is exploiting the fears of and some of those who have taken us in to Brexit. These are not bad people in fact most of them are very good people, but they are people who have different ways of looking at the world to many of those closest to me and those whose thoughts fill my social media feeds. These are the people who the leader needs to win over with policies which give principled alternatives to the Tories but for which people will vote. What we need is somebody who can offer hope where UKIP are offering fear and scapegoating.

Now I know that Corbyn offers that to some extent and that is what is building his support. However, he is not offering this up in a form which will appeal to those marginal voters I listen to on public transport. Part of the reason for this lies with the media and the way in which they portray Corbyn but it also has to do with the way in which he has portrayed himself too. He has portrayed himself as somebody who is not willing to listen and rather than breaking with past can be seen as a return to it.

So is Smith the answer in getting their votes. No, clearly not. He is a man who appears to have so little charisma and principle that he does not have the power to overcome the damage that has been done here by both the PLP and Corbyn. Additionally, he is seeking to appeal to everybody and I suspect is genuinely appealing to very few.

What also worries me here is the way in which the Labour Party seems to be re-enacting some of the battles of the 1980’s with players who are just a little older now. History tells us that it was that infighting which led to the long years of Tory rule from 1979 onwards and gave Thatcher part of the power she had.

We have already seen how the government has used the publicity around this internal civil war to announce they are intending to replace our signing up to the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights. What we are doing here is, I think, giving the government the opportunity (and their future majority) to develop policy that is going to be deeply damaging to the UK.

Additionally, the leadership contest seems to be bringing out the underlying structural sexism which was a larger part of the left in the 1980’s but still lingers in some parts today. Over the last couple of decades there has been real work in the party and trade unions which has overcome this but it seems with the macho posturing and infighting that has been going on by men of a certain age we have gone back to the bad old days.

Why don’t I walk away? Well, that would be the easy thing to do. However, I have a belief that we need a strong opposition to defeat the Tories and that will not ever be rebuilt if we all walk away. Even though I voted for Cooper in last year’s leadership election it was Corbyn who got me to stand up and say “yes, at heart I am really a Labour supporter and I want to do what I can to support the vision for our country I have become a reality now they are post-Blairism.” If we all walk away the Tories will have won without a fight and UKIP will step further into the void.

So why don’t I just abstain? I clearly don’t want to vote for either of the candidates and abstaining is what I would love to do. Yet, standing idly by is not an option. I have to decide I want one or the other because they are the choices I have.

I did hope writing this post would help but all it has done is underline why I think that what has gone on is wrong and why all involved need to shoulder responsibility for what they are doing to our country. When history looks back at what the Tories have done during this period and what, I think, will be the further dangerous rise of UKIP those involved in the PLP and the Corbyn camp will be seen to have been a large part of the reason it happened this way. I feel that both are equally to blame and am really angry about that. The PLP should not have had the vote of no-confidence but Corbyn should have stepped down when the result of that came through. We should have had a leadership contest with a range of contenders to choose from not just Corbyn and “stop Corbyn”.

So how will I vote? Well, I am tempted to in the end effectively give my vote to another and vote how he, (who has been excluded by the system which stopped people who legitimately became members in order to support their principles), wanted to vote. The person I am thinking about has faithfully voted Labour over the years and has held to the principles which mean he believes in the Corbyn vision.

That said, I think if Corbyn wins the situation will just get even worse because we need a fresh start. Yet I don’t believe Smith will or can give us a fresh start and I fear his leadership is one which will give Stephen Kinnock power. This factor is important to me as I have listened to Kinnock and come to the conclusion that he is the next Blair. So I still don’t know…..in the end it may come down to tossing of the coin and the hope that we get a new party rising from the ashes which truly represents what I am looking to vote for.

JPIT - Think, Pray, Vote Event Review

Yesterday we headed off to Coventry for the Joint Public Issues Team (JPIT) bi-annual event Love Your Neighbour: Think, Pray, Vote where the speakers included the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby.

JPIT is a group doing work for and representing the Baptist, Methodist and United Reform Churches in the UK. They are headed by Rachel Lampard who introduced the day. Within her introduction to this day which focused on Christian involvement in politics she made the point that whilst there might be some focus on the election what happens before and after is also important. She said, "we shouldn't fetishise the vote".

The Archbishop received an enthusiastic welcome for his speech, which has been put on line. Within it there was some defensiveness reflecting that he had obviously been somewhat stung by some of the reaction there had been to the Bishops Pastoral Letter Who Is My Neighbour last week. He explored why we should build a society which is focused upon the common good making the point that evangelism and social action/involvement are two sides of the same coin. He urged us to be positive and celebrate our freedoms.

He was at pains to make clear the church disagrees with all governments at times but can also see good within some actions of most. With regard to our current government and economic situation he said we should be rejoicing that unemployment has been falling and the number of small businesses are building. Yet he also made the point that the living wage should be supported as much as anything else because deflation is dangerous and a higher wage will help kick start demand.  Within this part of his talk, as with others, his knowledge of economic history as well as policy was clear and refreshing.

He then moved on to ways we could and needed to get involved and one important aspect was the need to challenge cynicism and to see voting as part of our responsibility. With regard to the fact that the over 65's are more likely to vote he saw this unhealthy because it means one sector of society is able to ensure their interests dominate at the expense of others. He made the important point the more people who vote the fairer society will be.

The first workshop I attended was on Preaching and Praying Social Justice. This was one of those short workshops which would ideally have been a half day or more itself and so was somewhat rushed and left you wanting more. The session was useful for me as a local preacher because it involved some basic reminders of what makes good preaching. As with the Archbishops speech it was clear there was a biblical focus on emphasising both evangelism and social action.

After lunch it was on to a session on immigration and the issues around that. This was perhaps the most disappointing session of the day because I went hoping I would be given some serious advice on how to engage with UKIP and the arguments they are making around immigration particularly. However, whilst there were some useful figures and a small amount of interesting story it felt was lacking substance somewhat. It felt like this is still an issue JPIT is struggling to get a hold on to some extent.

The final part of the afternoon was a keynote sermon from Ruth Gee. I approached listening to this as an extension of the morning session on how to preach on social justice and it was a master class. Ruth took as her two texts Micah 6:8 and Mathew 22: 34-40 and wove a clear, relevant, contemporary sermon from these.

Overall an interesting and useful day which provided some good continued development for those of us who are preachers as well as some important food for action as well as thought for us as citizens.