THE CHURCH'S WELFARE TRAP?

Compass points, Simon Barrow, Comment-is-Free, Tuesday June 10 2008, 18:00 Some believe the government discriminates against Christian groups, but the reality is more complex. A new report tackles some of the important questions.

(Incidentally, the revamped CIF site now has a dedicated religion section, consolidating material published across Guardian Unlimited online and in the print edition)

WORTH TAKING SERIOUSLY

I have revised and slightly extended my short Ekklesia article, A wonky church and welfare debate. There will be more appearing on Wardman Wire tomorrow and my Guardian CIF piece is due sometime this evening. There's a short round up here, and an angular response from the Zaccheus 2000 Trust. Meantime, it would be good if some more of the people weighing in actually read Moral, But No Compass. But the lack of an e-edition is hampering that.

'[A]side from its rather sensationalist introduction in the media, the Von Hugel Institute's report is a substantial contribution to the debate, and provides plenty of fresh evidential material. Hopefully the rush to judgement which is so common in public life these days will not obscure the important detail and the full depth of the wider picture it seeks to present - whether we agree with its conclusions and emphases, or not."

A CLASH OF POINT-MISSING PERSPECTIVES

If there's going to be disagreement, it's good to figure out where, why and how it arises. But when it comes to religion and public life, there is more frequently unhelpful confusion. Here is Francis Davis, one of the authors of Moral, But No Compass (now being styled as the 'lead author') writing about it in the Jesuit online journal, Thinking Faith - 'A challenge to every politician'. On the other hand, Andrew Copson of the British Humanist Association is decidely less than impressed.

[This article on Ekklesia continued here - updated 9 June 08].

I have further articles on the Von Hugel report due this week on The Guardian's Comment is Free and in the Express and Echo (which today published an article about a recent Exeter meeting on faith and politics that made it looks as if I am an uncritical approver of government schmoozing with the churches and vice versa. I asked for a column to clarify my view.)

CHURCH CAUGHT IN A SPIN OVER WELFARE

Something of a fuss has broken out about a new report, commissioned for the Church of England, concerning the role of faith communities (actual and potential) in relation to publicly-funded and sanctioned welfare service provision. I have talked to one of the authors, who I know personally, and I was also interviewed for the research along with many others. But that is my only direct link with the Cambridge-based Von Hugel Institute publication, Moral, But No Compass: Government, Church and the Future of Welfare (Matthew James, £9.95), other than as someone who shares a direct concern with the issues it tackles. Among other things, as the title suggests, the report reveals some significant gaps in data and knowledge on the part of government departments, related agencies and the church itself, as far as Christian involvement in voluntary work is concerned. I have spent a good chunk of time today responding to media enquiries about all of this.

Ekklesia has already commented critically on the emerging 'new deal' between church and state over public services. I tackled some of the questions involved in the latter part of my chapter on "the churches' caring role" in Street Credo: Churches and Communities (edited by Michael Simmons, published by Lemos & Crane in 2001). Jonathan Bartley did so in his book Faith and Politics After Christendom (Paternoster, 2006).

The initial reporting about Moral, But No Compass has been rather selective, "well spun" and based on what was either a leaked document or a deliberately placed one. In any event, the full report was originally embargoed until a press conference in London tomorrow at 11am and will still be unveiled in full then, though the tone of reception and response has already been established. The archbishops of Canterbury and York will apparently issue a statement.

There is much more to be said about this (I'm respecting the embargo, even if the rush to summary judgment has already begun), but my opening comment on behalf of Ekklesia was as follows: "We believe a more careful, calm and critical evaluation is needed of the role of faith groups in public service provision. It is particularly important that the needs of the vulnerable and the reasonable expectation of all people (whether religious or non-religious) for equal treatment from public services should not be subsumed too readily in a ‘contracting-out’ culture that can put the interests of providers – government, voluntary and private agencies – ahead of those they are supposed to be helping. Research and thought is badly needed, but a confused ‘debate’ fuelled by sensational headlines and half-truths will not help anybody.”

A VIRTUOUS CIRCLE

"Understanding is the key to valuing, valuing is the key to caring, and caring is the key to acting."

(Adapted from the ending of a National Trust and UNESCO-supported AV presentation that I watched at Liskeard Museum yesterday, introducing historical sites across Cornwall.)

LINKING ARMS AGAINST ARMS

The Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) Christian Network is holding a day of prayer on Sunday 8 June 2008, as part of a week of action aimed at highlighting the deleterious impact of global weapons sales in a world of conflict and suffering. The specific aim of the week has been to put pressure on the British government to re-open the corruption enquiry into BAE Systems' Saudi links, following the landmark High Court ruling against the Serious Fraud Office's earlier decision to drop the investigation. CAAT played a key role in securing that judgment. I am particularl pleased to have been able to offer a message of support on behalf of Ekklesia. Back in the '70s and 80's I did a fair bit of research and writing on the arms trade and development, and I served on CAAT's national steering committee from 1976-1987.

A MESSAGE OF HOPE

Moving religion from harm to healing Ekklesia, 4 June 08. Religion that binds others with condemnation and superstition is far from the heart of the Gospel, says Simon Barrow. The church needs to face its arguments and seek to be a place of healing if it is to rediscover its global role.

FROM FEAR TO FREEDOM

Here's the first interlinear plug for a new book I have edited (and have five chapters in) which is due out for the beginning of July - possibly a little before. It's called Fear or freedom? Why a warring church must change, and I'm honoured to say that it has a preface by Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu. Contributors include Deirdre Good, Savitri Hensman, Christopher Rowland, Glynn Cardy and others. It takes a constructively critical look at the significance of ‘Anglican wars’ in the run up to (and well beyond) the 2008 Lambeth Conference, signalling some important fault lines in post-Christendom life and faith. Its message is positive. The churches can - and must - abandon their obsession with top-down control, and rediscover the Gospel as a subversive source of hope in society at large. Fear or freedom? will be published jointly by Ekklesia and Shoving Leopard, a new Edinburgh-based imprint run by my friend Janet de Vigne, whose mantra is "life in all its fullness was never 'safe'." You will not be able to order it yet, but as soon as it is online the information will be made available.

HILLARY ABOUT TO WALK

The BBC reports that Hillary Clinton will finally step down from the Democratic US presidential nomination race and endorse Barack Obama on Saturday 7 June. America clearly needs a substantial change of direction, but I confess that I remain sceptical about all the romantic hype surrounding Obama, and also about his capacity to win. If you look at his policies, he's not quite what the wide-eyed idealists imagine. I was hoping for something much more positive from Hillary, having admired her since her earlier attempts at substantial health care reform (which was extraordinary as a creative policy exercise, but from which she has had to learn hard lessons politically). So I feel more than a touch of sadness at the implosion of her campaign. Almost everyone else I talk to (including my American wife) is positive about Obama. I still think that Clinton would have been far stronger working the Washington system -- which, frankly, is what you have to do. Plus the anti-Hillary narrative has been drenched in sexism and an anti-women backlash, which is deeply disturbing.

Real change isn't dreamt up from the top. It comes from people at the grassroots challenging the shape of the agenda on which power politics (never less than a messy business) gets played out. So if people sit back and expect Obama to deliver whatever it is that they want - a reversal of Iraq policy, climate action, anti-poverty strategies, an Israel-Palestine settlement - they will, I fear, be sorely disappointed. The defining issue is likely to be the economy, where both he and McCain are less than sure-footed, both caught up in the neoliberal paradigm, and each -- for different reasons -- reluctant to challenge the vested interests of corporate America. For example, on a universal health care mandate - which one opposes and the other avoids. Hillary Clinton would have been in the same boat, and is in many respects an establishment figure. But I suspect she may have been bolder than in practice Obama will end up being, shorn of the rhetoric, if he gets to the White House. I would be delighted to be proved wrong, of course.

WISH FULFILMENT

"Our desires do not become respectable because we offer them to God in prayer. Prayer is the purification of desire. It is not only pointless but unintelligent to entertain a thousand desires when there are only a few choices." (Colin Morris, A Week in the Life of God )

ONLY COMMUNICATE

Dave Walker, of the excellent 'Cartoon Church', has done a good follow-up piece on the strange fuss about 'Faithbook', over at his regular Church Times blog. I belong to at least two inter-religious pages on Facebook, so I'm pretty sure that the idea of getting the whole gang "on the same page", so to speak, is very far from unique. But it seems that any time some "official representatives" from a religious group get somewhere near a newish medium that "ordinary people" have in fact been using for ages, it becomes a "story". The Times' "it's about combating extremism" angle was especially cute. Spend a moment or two trying to think how that might work and you will see why it seems a bit thin. This is not to say that there isn't value in as many ventures as possible to get people to talk across divides of world-view, belief and ideology, I stress. It's just the hype that doesn't help.

I wonder whether the unfortunate "with-it vicar" syndrome of the '60s and '70s (when a hapless cleric would be meaninglessly lauded for getting a motorbike, going down the pub or featuring in a pop video, say) hasn't morphed into pretty well any place where "faith leaders" try to latch onto the spokes of a fast-turning a-religious culture that many suspect they don't really "get", having been advised by anxious acolytes to throw themselves at in order to "communicate". No doubt we will have the Archbishop of Canterbury on Twitter soon, a few weeks before it is declared to be formally passe by some Arbiters of Cool.

Chill, everyone.

[Cartoon (c) Dave Walker and weblogcartoons.com. He also has at least one book out, which is very good. Now go keep him in cookies by buying it.]

FACT AND FAITHBOOK

Boy, you have to be careful what you say these days. This morning I noted the small story by Riazat Butt of The Guardian on the launch of something called 'Faithbook', which aims to promote dialogue between people of different religious persuasions. So I Googled to find out what it's about. As far as I can see (and I may be wrong), Faithbook is simply another page on the Facebook social networking site. Which doesn't seem quite such a big deal as the media interest (which is growing by the minute) might suggest. There are a variety of other, mainly evangelical, initiatives out there that use the term, by the way.

Anyhow, I "joined" the page and left a comment, which simply said, in a spirit of puzzled enquiry: "Um, is this it, then? Just another group on Facebook?" Lo and behold, a few hours later, I get pinged from a page on The Times, where Joanna Sugden duly informs the world that, in my capacity as co-director of Ekklesia, I have "criticised" Faithbook. Goodness. That's news for you. And to me, frankly! For the record, I'm a bit sceptical about the fuss, but if it promotes sensible conversation (as distinct from immediate pigeon holing), so much the better.

PROXIMATE TO ALL, CONTAINED BY NONE

When the Emperor Ptolemy sacked Jerusalem in 63 AD, and entered the Holy of Holies in the Great Temple, he was baffled to find an empty room -- no picture, ascription or image. Emptiness is a negative description of the God who cannot be named, described or contained." (Colin Morris, The Word and the Words)

"The characteristic form of God's presence is absence" (Deny Turner)

CHRISTIANS AND OTHER ALIENS

The Prodigal Kiwis (Paul Fremont and Alan Jamieson) have a new post on William Stringfellow - an inspiration of mine, who died 23 years ago. Stringfellow was a lawyer in largely black East Harlem, an Episcopalian, a radical activist and a very substantial lay theologian who took American Christianity by the scruff of the neck and gave it a good shaking. Indeed, Karl Barth once famously told a staid theological conference that this was the man they should listen to. His work (including An Ethic for Christians and Other Aliens in a Strange Land) appeared in a series of now out-of-print books and latterly in Sojourners magazine.

In 1997 I helped with a conference in Oxford about Stringfellow's legacy, primarily organised by Tony Dancer. I led a seminar which became an essay called 'Talking Nonsense to Power' in Tony's book William Stringfellow in Anglo-American Perspective (Ashgate). There's a brief excerpt here. Among the other contributors are Rowan Williams and Chris Rowland. Unfortunately (especially for a book that seeks to represent a grassroots intellectual) it costs £45 in hardback. A paperback edition is sorely needed. When I met ++Rowan at a Lambeth reception a year or so ago we mentioned approaching the publisher about that. I ought to follow up. Thanks, Paul and Alan, for keeping Stringfellow's profile up there.

UNBOUNDED GRATITUDE

I am neither a greater follower of celeb news nor a regular reader of the Mail on Sunday, it won't surprise you to know. But, cynicism aside, there was a touchingly authentic article today by actor Natascha McElhone -- whose husband, surgeon Martin Kelly, suddenly and tragically dropped dead of a severe heart attack recently, at the age of 42. Its tenor was not self-pity but gratitude, which makes a refreshing change in the narcissistic world of 'Californication'.

"I don't know why I'm not surprised that his life came to an abrupt end. I didn't think 'Why us? Why me?', I just thought, "Thank God I've lived like this thus far. Whatever happens, it was worth every ounce of pain I'm going through now."

THE POT BUBBLES

Reaction to Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali's comments continues. Thinking Anglicans does its usual reliable job in providing an ongoing round-up. The response includes a sympathetic profile by Riazat Butt, a cartoon from Dave Walker for the Church Times, and a lead on my Guardian article in Episcopal Cafe ('Should the Church have special status?'). By the way, I did not choose the headline Blinkered bishop, and would wish that the disagreement could be conducted without calling names.

HOW ABOUT THE CHURCH BEING MORE CHRISTIAN?

Surely bemoaning that society does not pay sufficient attention to church leaders and fails to implement their preferred policies or treat their ethics with respect misses the point - which is that it is the church's job to nurture disciples who might lead people to suspect that the Gospel offers something rather more significant than consolation to an in-group and a stiff telling off to everyone else? Aside from my concerns about the dangerously reactionary implications of 'Christian nation' rhetoric, that is my main theological objection to Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali's attempt to shake us back into restoring the civic religious mould.

Blinkered bishop Simon Barrow Guardian Comment-is-Free May 30 08, 09:00am: Michael Nazir-Ali has the wrong target. Rather than expecting the nation to be Christian for him, he should urge churches to practice what they preach.

MAKING PEACE IN DANGEROUS SITUATIONS

118 Days: Christian Peacemaker Team Held Hostage in Iraq, edited by Tricia Gates Brown, is a new book that I have contributed a chapter to (on media reporting) with US Ekklesia consult Tim Nafziger. It is available in the UK through Metanoia Book Service. On November 26, 2005, Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) members Tom Fox and Jim Loney along with delegation members Norman Kember and Harmeet Sooden were kidnapped in Iraq. Tom Fox was killed on March 9, 2006. Jim, Norman and Harmeet were freed two weeks later on March 23 after 118 days of captivity. The kidnapping of these four peacemakers was like a rock thrown into a pond. This collection describes the ripples on the water, the impact and results of that rock, in stories characterized by hope, courage, friendship, and forgiveness. 118 Days bears witness to vital peacemaking being done around the world in these times. Available from 5 June 2008. See also www.118days.org

THE VISION THING

I am speaking at a policy discussion on 'Renewing the Vision' in Exeter on 7 June, 2pm - with Ben Bradshaw MP, theologian Professor Tim Gorringe from the University of Exeter and Sue Errington from the Global Centre. It is organised by the Christian Socialist Movement (CSM). Further details: http://www.thecsm.org.uk/policydiscussion.html

FEAR IS NO BASIS FOR PROGRESS

The Guardian 's Comment-is-Free has carried a thoughtful response from Inayat Bunglawala (pictured) of the Muslim Council of Britain to Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali's Standpoint article on the disintegration of 'Christian Britain' -- which is now available online here incidentally. (And I mention that not just because Inayat has been kind enough to quote me approvingly.) There's also a trenchant editorial calling on Rowan Williams to speak out in the The Guardian today.