Philosophical and theological influences and more......

When I was studying for a law degree the subject I enjoyed most was jurisprudence & legal theory.  Most universities simply named it 'jurisprudence' but my alma mater chose to adopt a rather grander title!  Dipping into the schools of jurisprudence engaged me in a study of the ideas of numerous philosophers and provided me with an understanding of the symbiotic relationship of ethics, legal theory, political philosophy, theology, sociology and economics. It taught me also to view propositions with cynicism, a trait I have retained for the past sixty years, but above all it enlightened me as to how the processes for moving from theory to action work. 

I took a particular interest in the ideas of Karl Popper, John Kenneth Galbraith, John Robinson, Martin Luther King Jnr. and Jacques Derrida.  Later I would be influenced by the works of Don Cupitt, Richard Holloway, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Richard Rohr, Jurgen Moltmann and Gustavo Gutierrez.  An eclectic mix of ideas.  

There are many other writers who also have been influential. I describe my theological position as being a melange of the ideas of others: there is nothing original in my thinking.  Currently I lean towards humanism and away from theism, pantheism and panentheism.  

What has been a constant opinion of mine for many years is that we must provide help and support to those in need and be totally inclusive in so doing.  Also, we must challenge systemic injustice  through campaigns for social justice.

Looking back it is clear to me how my exposure to so many ideas, and the sifting process I have undertaken, has led me to my current theological and political outlook.   Politically I describe myself as a democratic socialist.  

In the end all the theory and philosophy is meaningless.  What matters are not concepts but how you engage in practical action to help others, to show love and kindness and concern for people,  indeed for the whole of creation.  Dear reader, the challenge we should set ourselves is to engage in practical action to the best of our resources and ability.

Cooperatives should be supported by churches.

Last week, to celebrate my eightieth birthday,  we went on a coach trip to Sheerness to visit the Criterion Theatre and Museum located in the shadow of the massive dock boundary wall. Excellent fish and chips and a great variety show.  The Criterion is entirely volunteer run and the person in charge emphasised that the Bluetown part of Sheerness, where the theatre is located was, and is, one of great poverty.  We were told there is documentary evidence of a cooperative in Bluetown predating the Rochdale Pioneers.

I support the concept of cooperatives and making them a reality.  Below are four of my blog posts from 2023 expressing the opinion that faith groups and cooperatives should collaborate to a far great extent.  After all, there are examples of cooperative working in the bible.

1.

I am of the opinion that Christians should support cooperatives and I intend to explain why in this and future posts.  Cooperatives exist in a number of settings  so it may be helpful to start with a definition. The International Cooperative Alliance (ICA) defines a cooperative as:

an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly owned and democratically controlled enterprise. 

The ICA states cooperatives values are based on values of self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity and solidarity. In the tradition of their founders, cooperative members believe in the ethical values of honesty, openness  social responsibility and caring for others.

The ICA states cooperatives are open to all persons able to use their services and willing to accept the responsibilities of membership, without gender,  social, racial or religious discrimination.

All sentiments to be applauded, but are they descriptions of the reality world-wide? Probably not.

2.

Cooperatives are owned and controlled by its members. Each member has one vote. They are democratic organisations. Not like many churches.

The Salvation Army does not have elections except for its General who is elected by territorial leaders. It is run like an army with a top-down structure.

The Church of England has a limited democratic structure.  There are elections, not all open to every member, for parochial church councils, churchwardens, deanery and diocesan synods and General Synod. The bishops in General Synod can block motions. Archbishops, bishops and cathedral deans are appointed by the Sovereign on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. Control is vested in the top hierarchy.

Many self-standng free churches are controlled by Elders who appoint new Elders.

Doubtless there are denominations with sound democratic credentials and some that are not so blessed.  The important point is that formal structures do not reflect always the reality of the functional operation of power and control. Cooperatives have democratic control  'wired in' and this is sadly lacking in many churches where power rests with the gatekeepers. Christians should support cooperatives,  learn about democratic processes and seek to have them applied by their own churches.

3.

A declaration of interest. I have promoted credit unions for many years, engaging with housing associations, local government, churches, community groups and secular charities. 

Credit unions are cooperatives, one member one vote organisations. A person investing £5.00 has the same voting rights as a person investing £1,000.00. One important feature of credit unions is a willingness to consider on a case by case basis lending to individuals with a poor credit history. However much more needs to be done to reach individuals at risk of, or having been, ensnared by loansharks charging astronomical interest rates.

As Christians we can assist credit unions by saving with them. Deposits are protected in like manner to bank and building society deposits. The more that is saved enables a credit union to expand its lending. We can encourage individuals in need of financial help to apply to credit unions and support applications.

Credit unions and churches are parts of the infrastructure of support for people suffering poverty, deprivation and marginalisation. They should work in collaboration with each other.

4.

I noted the need for foodbanks over fifteen years ago and helped form a community interest company to promote their development. The speed of the growth in the number of foodbanks has surprised me, although the need for them and the causes of that need are clear. Too many people live in abject poverty and need help.  Society should will the means to take individuals out of poverty. Instead government pays lip service to overcoming poverty and leaves it to the voluntary sector to pick up the pieces of broken lives. It is a tragedy.

There is no quick fix solution. What is required is better education, better health and wellbeing provision, better housing,  better public transport, better job opportunities, better care for the elderly and so on. People have been saying this for many years but government is bedevilled by short-termism and the realisation that there are not many votes to be gained by promoting policies to bring about improvement. And so the causes of poverty continue. We have sink schools, a health service on its knees, poor quality and quantity of social housing, declining public transport etc.

Christians are providing bandages. We need to campaign more for fundamental  changes in  policy and expenditure priorities of government. 

Foodbanks are either self-standing organisations or part of a larger organisation. They may be community interest companies, or unincorporated associations or limited companies with or without charitable status.They are not operating as cooperatives. The clients of foodbanks usually  are not members with equal voting rights. The Rochdale Pioneers saw self-help as the key to improving their lives.  This is an approach churches should encourage and support. 

A position statement

 My initial post was in 2022.  Looking over the collection of postings it is clear to me that my ideas have become far more radical, liberal, progressive, deconstructivist over this period to the extent that now I regard myself as humanistic in outlook, but driven by the concepts attributed to  Jesus of fully inclusive love and justice.  I understand the ideas contained in the synoptic gospels are to be found in other faiths and non-faith sources, but as my background is one of involvement in christianity they are my main source of inspiration.

The messages of helping individuals at point of need on a fully inclusive basis and challenging systemic injustice to achieve social justice for all, have been the influential factors in recent years in determining my theological thinking and practical action.  My deep regret is that I have achieved little by way of lasting success.

The sweeping principles of love and justice are human concepts to be promoted as a counter to narrow, restrictive rules of a text of human creation.  'Bible based christianity' beloved of fundamentalists is an oxymoron.  To understand love and justice does not require  dissection and poring over words in an ancient book of entirely human origin for literal meaning: it is an attitude of mind free from such incumbrance.  

I appreciate my christian heritage and understand the creeds as symbolic/metaphorical statements of humanity's seeking to understand our world and purpose in life.  Creeds identify a way of travel in life,  an idea well expressed by Revd Don Cupitt.  Christianity has to be dragged, screaming or otherwise, into our 21st century understanding of the world and purpose in it, not left to be an irrelevant relic from a far-off time.   

What a shambles.

Many people had hoped the appointment of the current Bishop of London as the new Archbishop would herald closure of the issues fermenting during Justine Welby's time  at Canterbury.  Fat chance.  Sarah Mullally brings with her a cartload of safeguarding baggage. Issues around Living in Love and Faith and GAFCON's  decision to break away from the Anglican Communion will be in her pending tray.

There has been an upsurge in questions concerning her role in handling safeguarding issues in the London diocese.  A television programme and commentary on social media by clerics in the diocese raised important issues that cannot be swept away by apologies and bland PR statements.  There is something rotten at the core of the diocese and there needs to be an independent investigation into the role of senior clerics and administrators to identify what is wrong with the process of handling safeguarding concerns.  Until this matter is resolved safeguarding will continue to dog Mullally, as it did her predecessor.

The decision by the House of Bishops to 'pause' a decision on what to present on the issue of Living in Love and Faith (LLF) to the next meeting of the General Synod had caused anger and angst among those supportive of same-sex blessings and permitting same-sex marriage for clergy.  The House stated this week that a decision will be made in January and proposals presented to the next General Synod meeting in February 2026.  The question is: what will be proposed?  

The House stated in October 2025 what in principle it was likely to firm up on at its December meeting.  Following the October meeting there has been a concerted effort by supporters of the same-sex proposals to counter the opinion of the House that a complicated process of decision to change canon law is required which effectively would kill the proposals as two-thirds majorities are required in each of the three Houses of the General Synod: bishops, clergy and laity, with little chance of success.  Instead, it is argued that current powers of bishops and canon law enable the changes to go forward and be implemented without recourse to General Synod.

Opponents of LLF have noted the continued procrastination by the House of Bishops and probably had hoped for a decision to go ahead with the October proposals.  Whatever is decided it will be a tricky situation for Mullally as she is the lead on LLF and has supported the proposals for change.  Will she and like-minded bishops cave in to the bullying tactics of those opposed to change who have set up the Ephesian Fund, alternative oversight and made threats to establish a third province?  Or will she and her supportive bishops show courage and fortitude and press on with change?  Or is unity at any cost the mantra and hard luck to those in the LGBTQ+ communities who are  to be treated as second class individuals?

GAFCON basically are Anglican provinces holding to a fundamentalist, bible based, conservative, evangelical theology.  It places emphasis on the authority of the bible, over and above the dictates, of reason and tradition.  Female clerics are regarded with suspicion, indeed outright opposition, and it would be anathema to have a female head of the Anglican Communion.  To this may be added a rejection of any moves towards same-sex  relationships being condoned or suppported by the church.  Therefore it is little wonder that some provinces has decided to part with the Anglican Communion and establish their own organisation - even to the point of claiming that they are the true Anglican Communion and that progressive provinces have left them!  

What surprises me is that in England those opposed to change have not sought to join GAFCON.  But then it would lead to loss of buildings, homes, salaries and pensions so possibly that is disincentive to act.  Time to call the bluff of CEEC, Forward in Faith, HTB and the Alliance.

Targeted intervention

 A charity I supported over many years is about to close on account of financial fragility.  It has fallen victim to reduced income from individual and corporate donors, charitable trusts and contracts with statutory bodies.  The charity in question is Mental Health Resource based in Tunbridge Wells offering a wide range of services for individuals with mental health issues.  It is a good example of targeted intervention.  Lives of individuals will be diminished by the effects of closure and doubtless there will be additional calls for assistance directed to statutory agencies: probably at greater cost than continuing to fund the charity.

A charity that did close was the Panda Playgroup located in an area of multiple deprivation,  Established by a local councillor it provided support for  pre-school children living in high rise flats.  Pre-school members of families in the area living in poverty or destitution were referred by the local authority's social services department.  The charity had a high staff/child ratio.  Children enrolled by the playgroup were often not potty trained, well behind in language development, lacked social skills relevant to their age and a few were prone to violence.  The charity employed a family liaison officer (FLO) who provided assistance to parents on a wide range of matters.  The FLO work was commended by OFSTED as an example of excellent practice.  The charity was mentioned in a House of Common debate as being an excellent example of targeted intervention.  And then the wheels fell off.......

The borough council decided to close the community centre in which the charity was based.  The county council library housed in the building also was closed.  The library and community based activities were moved to a new building that unfortunately was not playgroup friendly in that there were no security arrangements to isolate the playgroup from the rest of the centre.  But not to worry, the county council was to open a new Surestart and the playgroup might transfer to that location.  However the Surestart staff/child ratio was low and the children Panda catered for would be mixed in with children from more affluent backgrounds.  The staff and the trustees of the charity determined it would not work and so it was decided to close the charity.  Thus a valuable resource was lost and that showed through in the years that followed by increased pupil  behaviour problems at the local primary school.

Targeted intervention works.  It assists individuals in need of support and is far cheaper that the long-term costs occasioned by non-intervention.  

If the concepts of love your neighbour and human rights mean anything it must mean that assistance is given to to those in need of additional support, not having to rely on the capricious nature of funding or the vagaries of political projects notable for their short-termism.  In other words systemic change to achieve social justice. It is a mantra of Liberation Theology and of progressive theology but sadly there is little evidence of successful achievement.  We are all too busy scrabbling about for funding to keep going activities  assisting individuals at point of need.  Rarely do we consider the wider picture.  Yes, there are learned reports gathering dust:  but where is the action?  Where and who are the influential effective proponents of systemic change today?  We are lost in an sea of managerialism and fiscal policy, fudges round the edges.  We fail to root out the deep causes of inequality, poverty, discrimination and marginalisation and plant something better.  

Social Justice: role of faith organisations (4)

An organisation I had the privilege of being a member of was the Tunbridge Wells Churches' Social Responsibility Group (TWCSRG), a charity with a board of trustees consisting of nominees from churches.  Trustees came from evangelical, liberal and traditional wings of  parishes of the Church of England, Baptist, United Reformed,  Roman Catholic and Methodist churches.  The Salvation Army was represented by the local corps' officer and there was a trustee nominated by Tunbridge Wells Evangelical Fellowship congregation: a cross-section of doctrinal and theological positions united in the pursuit of social justice.  

As a charity TWCSRG was completely independent of all denominations and this eventually led to some friction and the winding up of the charity, its work subsumed in the local Churches Together organisation.  

TWCSRG sought to assist individual churches engaged in, or proposing to engage in, activities to provide assistance to individuals at point of need or to develop community outreach. It supported non-church organisations with a christian ethos and worked in collaboration with secular organisations.  

Church in Society, a venture of the Joint Canterbury and Rochester Diocesan Board of Social Responsibility of the Church of England, provided invaluable advice and counsel.

TWCSRG took upon itself the role of discussing issues with the borough and county councils.  Specific areas of work were:

* Gaining recognition for Tunbridge Wells as a Fairtrade town.

* Campaigning for the establishment of a credit union, eventually set up by the county council with a big injection of seed funding.

*Contributing to the development of the borough Community Plan. TWCSRG succeeded in gaining a place of the steering group charged with publishing the plan and its representative became the chair of the steering group. 

The role of faith organisations in providing resources for the community is underrated by the public and the statutory sector. It is important that churches publicise the range of services they provide and its effects on communities.  I  believe it is vital to have a local directory of services managed by faith groups and use it to impress on statutory bodies in particular the value they represent both financially and to individuals and communities. Where we think the policy of a statutory organisation is misconceived or not working as intended efforts should be made to draw attention to the issues involved and press for change.  In other words we need to engage with those with power and seek to influence them but in a spirit of collaboration and when appropriate compromise.  

Engaging with politicians can be rewarding, but politics is a very rough mileu, not noted for tranquility, and we must be prepared to be tossed about and shaken, but not downtrodden nor dismayed. The pursuit of social justice takes us out of our comfort zone. We need to build resilience and confidence in ourselves and others to engage with those who may not share our values or concerns. 

Social Justice: role of faith organisations (3)

 I feel impelled to tackle issues of poverty, deprivation, exclusion and marginalisation, not because I desire to follow the teaching of Jesus, but as I consider it the correct thing to do. Neverthless the teaching attributed to Jesus is persuasive so I accept that the relationship between what I believe and the message of Jesus is a symbiotic one that determines my action.  I, along with many others, tackle issues not because we are followers of Jesus but simply because we consider it imperative  to engage in such issues.  Engaging in activities simply to promote your faith betrays an ulterior and ultimately unworthy motive.

An example of such a background is to be found in a community interest company formed by three individuals, two of whom were of an atheistic disposition and the third from a faith background.  Orginally the plan was to develop foodbanks but in the event something quite different developed: a community cafe in a healthy living centre!

Capital costs were met by an interest free loan from a local authority and revenue costs from a small number of charitable trusts.  The cafe opened for business with a paid manager/chef and an assistant.  Food was secured from Fareshare, an organisation distributing surplus food donated by food manufacturers, wholesalers and supermarkets. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) provided individuals on long-term benefits to work at the cafe and the cafe organised a 13 week day-release course at a local further education college. Individuals completing the course successfully were guaranteed a job interview at a major shopping centre.  The DWP was delighted with the success of the venture and there was hope that it might be rolled out to other locations: sadly this did not happen.  The cafe manager supported course members and customers with a signposting service to agencies.

Although the DWP was a major beneficiary of the project it offered no financial assistance.  The cafe income did not meet running costs, so after repayment of the loan to the local authority, it was decided the struggle to secure revenue grants from charitable trusts was too much and the project closed, a fate that has befallen many local charities.  

As I was an independent contractor working for a churches' social responsibility group I was in a position to assist with the formation of the company and its early work.  However, there was no other faith organisation involvement.

Social Justice: role of faith organisations (2)

 The Eldonian dream: Inside the fight for Liverpool’s community housing utopia | Liverpool | The Guardian

‘Posh-poor divide’: the rise in areas of England where wealth and deprivation appear side by side | Inequality | The Guardian

Both links above refer to issues of deprivation and the problems faced by voluntary organisations and individuals wishing to be drivers of change for the better, however 'better' is defined.  Although not specific to faith organisations the issues raised are of relevance to all organisations, including faith organisations, intent on 'improving' the lives of people living in areas of multiple deprivation. Before engaging in any activity please read the two articles and understand the issues and problems to be faced.  Together they are salutory lessons in what does go wrong and how slow the process of beneficial change (if any) can be: unremitting toil.

I declare an interest: I was active in one of the areas mentioned in the reports, ultimately unsuccessfully.

An example of what went wrong where a faith organisation was involved follows.  Again, a cautionary tale:

The Church of England parish church on the top of the hill has a large well-heeled congregation ministered to by a vicar and a curate. At the bottom of the hill is a council estate built in the 1960s. There are rows of terraced houses, blocks of flats and a shopping parade. At one end of the parade is a doctor's surgery, at the other a library. In-between one retail outlet is trading,  the others are empty. The church had no presence on the estate and very few residents made the trek up the steep hill to the  church.

The people living on the estate had a typical socio-economic profile. The church decided to take a lease from the borough council  on two of the retail units and turn them into a cafe, an activities area and a skills training workshop. The new centre was managed and run entirely by church volunteers.  Although the centre is busy it was noticeable that most of the clientele is not from the estate.

After the initial enthusiasm interest started to wane.  Then a 'big hitter' joined the congregation. An independent charity was formed as a limited company to run the centre. Trustees were nominated by the church along with representives of the borough and county councils, but no local residents either nominated or identified for future nomination. The borough sold the retail units and the county the library to the charity for nominal sums.  In return the charity raised a large capital sum from major philanthropic trusts and the Lottery. A complicated binding agreement was drawn up between the Lottery, councils and charity.

The money was used to renovate the buildings, build an extension and repurpose the library with the use of movable shelving thus enabling the space to be used for church services,  childrens' parties and other events. Part of the building was developed as a secure area for nursery provision. A small meeting room enables residents to meet councillors,  housing association managers and the like to discuss problems.

The new centre provides a range of services and activities for all age groups. The downside was the reluctance of the vast majority of people on the estate to become involved. This sadly is a feature of many secular and faith based community centres. The roots of the problem were first a failure to engage at the planning stage with the local community using appropriate methodology: secondly a failure to encourage real and not token ongoing community participation in running the centre. There was no sense of community ownership.  There was no community association to engage in dialogue, nor were opinion formers on the estate identified.  And there was no pub!

Inevitably there has been a reduction in activities.  The cafe closed, the nursery shut down and the library is under possible threat of closure as the county council seeks to cut discretionary budget expenditure.  Added to this the demolition of social housing flats is leading to a change in the socio-economic profile of the estate and the need and demand for community services and activities is declining.