Walter Brueggemann on prophetic ministry: commentary by 'Royce'

 Excellent exposition. Recommended.  

Becoming the People Who See Differently

“The task of prophetic ministry is to nurture, nourish, and evoke a consciousness and perception alternative to the consciousness and perception of the dominant culture around us.”

—Walter Brueggemann, The Prophetic Imagination

Brueggemann names what so many of us feel but struggle to articulate: the dominant culture forms us into ways of seeing that keep us stuck. And every generation has people who help us see differently—Bryan Stevenson in the courts, William Barber in the streets, Barbara Brown Taylor in the pulpit, Cole Arthur Riley in the quiet rooms where dignity is remembered. They’re the ones who refuse to let us settle for the story the culture hands us.

But most of us don’t meet these moments with that kind of clarity. We slip into the roles we’ve been taught to play. Sometimes we try to be the hero, carrying more than any one person can hold. Sometimes we become the villain, lashing out when we’re afraid or overwhelmed. Sometimes we feel like the victim, convinced we’re powerless in the face of everything unraveling around us. These roles are deeply human, but they keep us circling the same old patterns. They drain us without transforming anything.

The invitation of Jesus is not to shame these roles but to let them be transformed. The hero doesn’t disappear; they become a teacher—someone who empowers others instead of trying to save the world alone. The villain doesn’t get written off; they become a prophet—someone who tells the truth without contempt, someone whose courage is rooted in love rather than fear. And the victim isn’t left behind; they become a Christ‑bearer—someone who carries hope into places still marked by loss, someone who knows resurrection from the inside out.

And this, I think, is what Brueggemann means when he says the task of prophetic ministry is to “nurture, nourish, and evoke a consciousness and perception alternative to the dominant culture.” Each of these transformed roles becomes a vocation in that work. When we take up the calling of the teacher, we nurture a different way of seeing—forming courage, compassion, and clarity in one another. When we grow into the prophet, we nourish truth in a world addicted to illusion—speaking with a love that refuses to dehumanize. And when we live as Christ‑bearers, we evoke a consciousness shaped by resurrection—carrying hope into places still marked by loss. These are not abstract ideals; they are the shared work of becoming a people who can midwife restoration.

The invitation before us is to take up these vocations together—teachers, prophets, and Christ‑bearers—so that restoration becomes something we participate in, not just something we long for.

Royce

About Royce:

Operating primarily on Facebook and Instagram, Royce uses the handle @notthatkindofchristian to advocate for a version of faith centered on unconditional love, social justice, and inclusion. 

Key Characteristics of Royce’s Platform

• Mission: Royce describes the platform's foundation as love and explicitly states full support for LGBTQ+ siblings and civil rights.
• Theological Stance: He often critiques what he calls "theological corruption" or "Manly Christianity," instead calling for a return to Jesus’ original message of liberation and radical love.
• Advocacy: Royce frequently speaks out against Christian nationalism and the "weaponization of faith" for political power.
• Content Format: He shares daily insights, parables, and probing questions designed to move away from treating the Bible as an "infallible rulebook" and toward a more nuanced, discerning understanding of the Gospel. 

On politics and theology. Part 10: Another 'initiative'

 The latest foray by politicians into engaging the voluntary sector (including faith based organisations) in delivering policies to tackle "the country's most complex social challenges".

Really! All appointed by government, meeting four times a year.  Wow, it will meet at Downing Street.

It strikes me as being a complete waste of time.  Window dressing and ego massaging.  If government is serious about working with and supporting the voluntary sector it should be doing far more to relieve the financial pressures on the sector.  Voluntary organisations are closing as a consequence of cost rises (particularly employment costs) and falling income. 

The press release (in full) is below. Public relations tosh.

New civil society council established to put partnership at the heart of government

Leading voices from across the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector have today been appointed to the new Civil Society Council, established by the Prime Minister to bring civil society into the heart of government decision‑making.

From:

Prime Minister's Office, 10 Downing Street and The Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer KCB KC MP

Published

10 March 2026

• Civil society working in partnership with government at the highest level to drive implementation of the Covenant 
• Better policy delivery across government through closer partnership on issues that cut across departments, from social cohesion to public services 
• Council to provide an open and representative voice for civil society at the centre of government 

Leading voices from across the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector have today been appointed to the new Civil Society Council, established by the Prime Minister to bring civil society into the heart of government decision‑making. 

The Council will drive a new approach to partnership with civil society, overseeing implementation of the Civil Society Covenant at national and local level, and builds on last summer’s Civil Society Summit and the launch of the Office for the Impact Economy. 

Together, these steps mark a renewed commitment to working with charities, social enterprises and community groups as core partners in tackling the country’s most complex social challenges. 

The Civil Society Council will provide a central forum to address issues that cut across government, including social cohesion and public service commissioning, and to identify opportunities for civil society to play a greater role in the design and delivery of policies and services. 

The Council will be chaired by Kate Lee OBE, Chief Executive of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO), and will bring together senior leaders from charities, social enterprises, philanthropy, faith and community organisations, and the youth sector. It will meet quarterly in Downing Street and be supported by a dedicated team in No10, maximising the opportunities for civil society to contribute across government. 

Council members were appointed following an open and competitive Expressions of Interest process which received nearly 600 applications. Final members were selected to reflect a broad mix of experience, expertise and geographic representation. 

The Council will hold its inaugural meeting next month. 

A full list of Council members is set out below: 

• Kate Lee OBE (Chair) - CEO of NCVO 
• Matt Hyde OBE – CEO of Lloyds Bank Foundation 
• Gemma Peters – CEO of Macmillan Cancer Support 
• Dame Clare Moriarty – CEO of Citizens Advice 
• Mark Russell OBE – CEO of The Children’s Society 
• Emma de Closset – CEO of UK Community Foundations 
• Charlotte Hill OBE – CEO of The Felix Project & FareShare 
• Bishop Rob Wickham - CEO of the Church Urban Fund 
• Dr Tessy Ojo CBE – CEO of The Diana Award 
• Maddy Desforges OBE – CEO of NAVCA 
• Saeed Atcha MBE DL – CEO of Youth Leads UK 
• Innes Morgan – Director and Founder of Act with Purpose   
• Dr Lindsay Cordery-Bruce – CEO of WCVA

On politics and theology. Part 9: Jesus was political, so should be his followers.

What is your understanding of the Bible?  Is it the inerrant word of  God to be applied literally or is your thinking along the lines of the quotations below?

The Christian story does not drop from heaven fully written. It grew and developed over a period of forty-two to seventy years. This is not what most Christians have been taught to think, but it is factual. Christianity has always been an evolving story. It was never, even in the New Testament, a finished story. JOHN SHELBY SPONG 

I let go of the notion that the Bible is a divine product. I learned that it is a human cultural product, the product of two ancient communities, biblical Israel and early Christianity. As such, it contained their understandings and affirmations, statements not coming directly or somewhat directly from God.....I realised that whatever "divine revelation" and the "inspiration of the Bible" meant (if they meant anything), they did not mean that the Bible was a divine product with divine authority. MARCUS J BORG 

Properly understood the Bible is a potential ally to the progressive Christian passion for transformation of ourselves and the world. It is our great heritage. Along with Jesus, to whom it is subordinate, it is our greatest treasure .MARCUS J BORG

My blog readers understand that I consider my theological opinions to be a mixture, mozaic, melange of liberal, progressive, deconstructive, liberation, postmodern and radical ideas.  My approach is a questioning one:  what is the role of scripture, is it stuck in a dead end or is it evolving and relevant in today's society?  Is it a museum exhibit or a dynamic source for good? 

The concepts attributed to Jesus by the authors of the synoptic gospels draw on a rich vein of social concern to be discerned in Jewish scripture appropriated to Christianity as the Old Testament.  It is concern for the poor, the marginalised, the discriminated against, the excluded.  It is a call not only to help at point of need but also to change societal structures to overcome the issues.  The teaching of Jesus is not a manual for applying a set of rules: it is a collection of broad principles capable of evolving and developing to meet the challenges of today's society.

To challenge the status quo, to demand change is to challenge  society's priorities, prejudices, allocation of resources.  It is a challenge to the political process, to economic and social structures.  The Jesus of the synoptic gospels delivered a radical political message, as his followers so should we.  

On politics and theology. Part 8: Jesus was political!

 I do not claim to be a Christian.  Rather, I seek to follow the teaching attributed to Jesus by the authors of the synoptic gospels.  My reading of them is heavily influenced by postmodernism, with particular regard to the ideas formulated by Jacques Derrida.

The synoptic gospels were written many years after the death of Jesus.  No tape-recorders or social media to record verbatim the words he spoke. Instead we have the mysterious 'Q' source, myths, stories, customs handed down from generation to generation to which has to be added the interpretation of this body of information  by the authors and the purpose each of the them had in mind for the material.  Not the firmest foundation on which to develop a theology based on the bible being the inerrant word of God, to be understood and applied literally. 

To understand the reason why Jesus was crucified by the Roman authority in Palestine it is important to tease out why Jesus was perceived to be a political threat to the established  order.  Rome was an occupying power.  It had no problem with conquered nations practicising there indigenous religion and customs, Roman law was the preserve of Roman citizens.  However Rome would not countenance threats to its authority and this is precisely what Jesus was perceived as doing.  On Palm Sunday Jesus rode into Jerusalem to wide acclaim: hosanna they cried.  Here was an existential threat to Roman rule in Palestine, the long-awaited and prophesied servant of God, fomenting an uprising,  who would bring about Jewish independence and sovereignty. The crime was sedition and crucifixion the penalty.

The Roman authority was aided and abetted by the Jewish religious leadership. Jesus had explained on numerous occasions the failure of religious leaders to apply concepts of love and justice as set out in Hebrew scripture.  His elimination would dispose of a threat to their authority.  Yes, Jesus was political, perceived to be a major threat to the stability of the political and religious establishments.  He had to go.

There was a further factor in play:  Jesus is portrayed by the synoptic gospel authors as having challenged economic and social orders, which of course, had political implications.  Hebrew scripture has many exhortations relating to caring for the poor and for systemic change to achieve social justice.  These themes continue in the synoptic gospels: the Sermon on the Mount, the Magnificat, the parables, the commandment to love your neighbour as yourself and following Jesus to bring heaven on earth.  All were threats to the established social order and hierarchies.  They had a political dimension as statements of the need for fundamental change in the ordering of society.

Those of us who have a progressive/liberation theology mindset take these teachings attributed to Jesus and seek to apply the concepts to today's societies.  But, the danger is that we may take a patronising or paternalitic approach, we may act as gatekeepers or guardians of the 'truth'.  In other words our approach often is deductive. Instead we need to take an inductive approach: ask the marginalised, poor and excluded what the teaching of Jesus means to them: not tell them what it means for them. 

On politics and theology. Part 7: Political parties and faith organisations

It is no secret I am an apologist for liberal/ progressive/ liberation/ radical/ deconstructivist theologies and take a postmodernist approach to understanding texts.  I claim to be a follower of the teaching ascribed to Jesus by the authors of the synoptic gospels. Political opinions define me as a democratic socialist.  Taken together they lead me to seek to support, however inadequately, individuals at point of need and to campaign for systemic change to secure social justice.  

In an earlier post I noted there is only so much an individual can achieve on their own.  It is essential to work in concert with like-minded individuals.  This may be by joining one or more of the following: a faith organisation, a political party, a trade union, a campaigning organisation, a secular charity, a community interest company, a co-operative such as a credit union.  A person joining an organisation may not subscribe fully to all its aims, objectives, policies, activities thus having to compromise for what they perceive as the greater good,  but seek to keep  one's integrity intact.

On politics and theology: Part 6: Listen, listen and again I say, listen!

In my capacity as chair of a charity providing activities in an area of multiple deprivation I was invited to attend a meeting at the civic offices to discuss how statutory bodies might tackle issues in the area.  I pointed out that I was the only person present who was not paid to attend, the only person working in the area, and that no residents had been invited.  

Why I asked was there no resident input, no survey inviting residents for their ideas on what was needed.  Instead of consultation or participation the statutory bodies planned to develop a top-down set of proposals.  I suggested it would be appropriate to seek the opinions of and discuss ideas with residents, before deciding on and publishing  a proposed programme of changes.  Oh no came the response. Residents would make unrealistic, unaffordable demands and be disappointed, indeed angry, when they were  rejected.  At least the political leader of the local authority recognised the pitfalls of a top-down approach and suggested that statutory bodies should seek to discern residents' aspirations rather than specific proposals.

The important consideration is to try and ensure residents have a voice or voices, that are heard.  In other words listen and take on board grassroots opinion and foster the perception that statutory bodies and residents can share ownership of and be stakeholders in an agreed programme.  Participation, not simply consultation, is one of the keys to achieving results. Do statutory and voluntary bodies (including faith organisations) understand the importance of dismantling a paternalistic, patronising, we know best mindset?  

When engaged in working with communities in areas of deprivation listen to the rhythms, the moods, anxieties, fears, despondency, despair, depression, signs of hope, caring, love, support, optimism, pessimism. Hearing the  experiences of individuals brings to life the  human consequences of public, social and political policies, preferences and prejudices.  It is from this base that develops the bottom-up, inductive approach to understanding the Christian faith.   It is the hallmark of liberation theology.

On politics and theology. Part 5. It's about people

As I mentioned in Part 1 organisations are run by people, it is people we interact with when setting up or managing an organisation or when we are campaigning.  

There is a mountain of literature explaining how to campaign, how to engage in community development,  how to manage an organisation, but the reality is that all the theory on how to act and what to do does not assist us when we come face-to-face with individuals.  What matters is how we relate to people and their perception of us.  First impressions matter.

The body of literature is of immense value in describing processes but does not address interpersonal skills, yet how we relate to people is the most important element in the tasks of helping individuals and campaigning for systemic change to achieve social justice.  It is a question of communication skills, of the ability to hold the attention of individuals and groups, to secure support and enthuse.  It is a matter of what we know and how we deliver our knowledge, insights. ideas, plans and messages to others.  Many of us have listened to church ministers, teachers, lecturers, politicans deliver terrible presentations.  Learned they may be, boring in delivery, soon forgotten.

It is vital to understand how to put a case.  It is even more important to know your audience, indeed to determine who should be your target audience.  Seek to discern who the key personalities are in communities and organisations: people with influence beyond formal organisation structures.  Building a reputation for trust and competence is time consuming but essential as a preliminary to getting people on side and supportive.  

Be prepared not to achieve the outcome you and your colleagues have worked for.  Communities of geography or interest may prove  to be unresponsive, even hostile:  organisations reluctant or opposed to changing existing policies and priorities or to make funding commitments. 

Faith in the City stated:

We are not at home in the tough, secular milieu of social and political activism. Paragraph 3.7. 

The challenge is to gain confidence to flourish as equals in this tough milieu.

On politics and theology: Part 4. The impact of government on local delivery of services.

The impact of the Blair/Brown/Cameron governments on the relationship between local authorities and the voluntary sector was profound: no more so than in Kent.  The most important lesson to be gained from what happened in the county is that whilst Compacts are excellent in theory, the reality is they are disregarded with impunity by a local authority determined to cut funding and/or services to meet austerity targets.  Commitments to long-term funding go out of the window.  

For many voluntary organisations the problem is that reliance on local and/or national government bodies' funding to provide services is such, that should funding be cut or reduced severely, there is serious risk  of financial instability.  Fear of such an outcome, of the pressure that the funder can impose, means voluntary organisations lose their independence, or even close.

The power rests with procurement units of local authorities and other statutory bodies not with the providers of services. This power is used in a variety of ways:

* Pressure is put on the voluntary sector to organise into larger units. Charities with numerous self-standing registered charity branches are 'encouraged' to merge or risk losing funding. Thus local knowledge and support of the charities is lost. 

*The funder indicates it is interested in receiving proposals for providing services from the profit-driven private sector. 

*The funder names an organisation to receive funding for services and that organisation takes on the role of distributing the funding to providers through an annual competitive bidding process.

The purpose is to drive down costs through a competitive process or meek compliance to the demands of the local authority or other statutory body.  Inevitably financial cuts leads to a drop in the standard of service, trustees and clients become discouraged, a charity goes into a downward spiral and then closes. 

What is lost is the local dimension, the response and engagement of individuals and organisations on the ground with knowledge and experience of the community they wish to serve.  You cannot put a monetary value on that.  

So what is/should be the role of Church of England parishes? Each parochial Church Council (PCC) is an independent charity and therefore has to adhere to charity law.  Charities are regulated by the Charities Commission.  The trustees of a PCC must act always in the interests of the charity.  Plenty of scope there for pressure to act in a certain way from the dioceses.  Whilst it is open to a PCC to take on activities funded by local or national government or other state agencies it needs to be aware of the fragile nature of the funding and have contingency plans to activate should the funding cease.  It is no surprise that most of the activities PCCs authorise are either self-funding or funded by the PCC.  

The issue is that PCCs are taking on the role of safety net by providing services the state has either refused to undertake or withdrawn from.  The danger is that as long as the voluntary sector generally is doing the job of the state the state has no incentive to take action.  There has been little change for many years in the levels of poverty and destitution in this country, in levels of homelessness, in alleviating or overcoming the issues in areas of multiple deprivation.

The shocking situation is that at a time the state relies on the voluntary sector its policies are driving many voluntary organisations to the wall.  Who will pick up the pieces?

On Politics and theology: Part 3: Big Society

The Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government led by David Cameron promoted the Big Society, a concept developed in the early 2000nds.  For a resume of the birth, life and demise  of  Big Society see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Society

See also:

https://www.newlocal.org.uk/articles/big-society-2-0-what-sets-our-paradigm-apart/#:~:text=Built%20around%20principles%20of%20localism%2C,the%20intellectual%20basis%20for%20Cameronism.

The concept and its  proposed application and implemention was intended to reduce the responsibility of the state and dump it on the voluntary sector to deliver was fraught with problems:  not least the lack of sufficient government funding to improve capacity within the sector as well as the sector's chaotic fragmented nature.

The then Church of England Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams,  had this to say of Big Society:

"Introduced in the run-up to the last election as a major political idea for the coming generation, [the Big Society] has suffered from a lack of definition about the means by which such ideals can be realised.

Big Society rhetoric is all too often heard by many therefore as aspirational waffle designed to conceal a deeply damaging withdrawal of the state from its responsibilities to the most vulnerable.

If the Big Society is anything better than a slogan looking increasingly threadbare as we look at our society reeling under the impact of public spending cuts, then discussion on this subject has got to take on board some of those issues about what it is to be a citizen and where it is that we most deeply and helpfully acquire the resources of civic identity and dignity".

The response of the Church of England generally is encapsulated below:

• Initial Support & Skepticism: While the Church of England generally supported the idea of community empowerment, it was concerned that the initiative was merely a way to reduce state funding for social services.
• "We are Already Big Society": Church leaders argued that many of the proposed activities were already being done by churches, viewing themselves as the "lifeblood" of communities.
• Criticism of Implementation: Despite criticisms, the Church engaged in efforts to tackle poverty alongside the government, showing a mix of pragmatism and critique.
• Alternative Viewpoints: Some perspectives in the Church of England looked at the agenda through a socio-theological lens, focusing on using resources like land and buildings for social good.

On politics and theology. Part 2: The Third Sector

A decade as a local government officer, four years as a councillor, many years in the voluntary sector seeking to influence, persuade, cajole councils to take courses of action promoted by myself or the organisation I represented,  gave me a solid base to understanding how local authorities operate and appropriate ways to put a case for change.  More importantly how to secure agreement to and implementation of the proposed change - sometimes.  

Welcome to the world of jobsworths, ego trips, insecurity, political expediency, compromise, conflict, demarcation, fear, bravado, cynicism, bureaucracy, interminable paperwork, obfuscation and delay.  No, not the Church of England (although you may think  the cap fits) but local government in England. 

For many involved with faith groups is it any wonder Faith in the City noted forty years ago:

Yet while many members of the Church of England have found it more congenial to express their discipleship by helping individual victims of misfortune or oppression, fewer are willing to rectify injustices in the structures of society.  There is a number of reasons for this preference for 'ambulance work'. No-one minds being cast in the role of protector and helper of the weak and powerless: there is no threat here to one's superior position and one's power of free decision. But to be a protagonist of social change may involve challenging those in power and risking the loss of one's own power. Helping a victim or sufferer seldom involves conflict; working for structural change can hardly avoid it.  Direct personal assistance to an individual may seem relatively straightforward, uncontroversial  and rewarding; involvement in social issues implies choosing  between complicated alternatives and accepting compromises which seem remote from any moral position.....We have little tradition of initiating conflict and coping with it creatively. We are not at home in the tough, secular milieu of social and political activism. Paragraph 3.7.

That passage could have been written yesterday.  It rings true: a prevailing issue that liberation and progressive theologies face: the reluctance to embrace, indeed downright opposition to, anything that deflects from a perceived role of the church to issue passports to heaven.  Yes, an exaggeration.  Social justice is way down the pecking order of priorities, particularly at local level. It is outside the comfort zone, for some it is threatening.

For government, centrally and locally, the voluntary sector is a headache.  Organisations in the sector are obliged to work within a statutory framework: company law, charity law, employment law etc.  The sector is an example of free enterprise, of competition.  There is nothing to prevent a voluntary organisation competing with other voluntary bodies.  There is no master plan for the sector. As an aside, new churches, church plants, can spring up competing with existing churches, existing churches may compete with each other for the elusive 'new bums on seats'.

Central government over the years has put its oar in in attempts to achieve order and efficiency within what the government of Tony Blair named theThe Third Sector and by implication engaging it in supporting government policies.  The cynics among us perceived this as an attempt to indirectly control the sector through a stick and carrot approach.

In the early 2000nds central government was hyper-active. A few titles to give a flavour.  The following emanated from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (John Prescott) as an adjunct to the statutory duty placed on local authorities to facilitate the development of community plans for their geographic area:

*Citizen Engagement and Public Services.  Why Neighbourhoods Matter.  

*Securing better outcomes, developing a new performance framework.

*Vibrant Local Leadership.

*Improving Delivery of Mainstream Services in Deprived Areas - The role of Community Involvement.

The Home Office published:

Working Together: Co-operation between Government and Faith Communities.

We had also The Compact: Funding and Procurement. Code of Good Practice.

The Legal Services Commission introduced: Community Legal Services Partnerships.

Not forgetting Police and Communities Together.

The Local Government Association weighed in with: towards self-governing communities.

All the above impinged directly or indirectly on the voluntary sector and the relationship between voluntary groups and government, particularly at local level.

Under the Conservative administration of David Cameron we had the Big Society.  The following is an interesting read, well worth perusing.

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/how-the-third-sector-became-the-first-line-of-support/

In Part 3 I shall consider the Big Society and the stance of the Church of England.

 

On politics and theology: Part 1: an introduction

This is the first of what I intend to be a series of posts on how christians can bring about change, by engaging in love of neighbour, and working  towards achieving  God's  kingdom on earth.  

I contend it is impossible to separate politics from christian liberation and progressive theologies. They are intimately connected, symbiotic.  Sometimes there is synergy, often there is conflict between faith and state institutions, there is even political/theological conflict within institutions.  When we speak of institutions we are not considering abstract entities: we are speaking of the attitudes and actions of people within organisational structures.  Decisions are made by people. 

Cards on the table.  I consider myself a democratic socialist.  I am supportive of the concepts of postmodernism, and christian liberation and progressive theologies.  For me, what are important are the hopes and aspirations of individuals, seeking to love our neighbour by helping at point of need and/or by campaigning for systemic change to achieve social justice.  A bottom up approach to helping individuals, grassroots demands for change, inductive bible interpretation.  With this comes the need to organise. However one should not overlook the countless examples of individuals acting alone: as a carer, shopping for the house-bound, listening, etc.  But there are limits to what an individual can do alone in terms of time, resources and physical ability. 

The answer for many is in collective action.  Joining a political party, a faith based organisation or a secular voluntary organisation, either as an individual engaging in the activities of the organisation, or involvement in the strategic direction, management or administration of an organisation. Thus a person may volunteer to help at a club established to provide meals for elderly people by serving food, washing up, assisting in the kitchen, transporting clients.   Others will become involved by joining the committee responsible for the operation of the club.  There will be founder members who established the club.  Some will make donations to sustain the financial viability of the club.  There will be individuals working in other organisations who decide to  provide the premises and equipment to enable the club to operate.  For the lunch club and countless other voluntary organisations it is the coming together of individuals determined to ensure the successful operation of the organisation that is the key element.  It is about individuals motivated to help others.  What drives the motivation?  Faith, experience, status, peer influence,  education, environment, political leanings are amongst the many and varied determining factors.

For some the motivation to action is the desire to see systemic change to achieve social justice.  The simplist way is to join an organisation campaigning in the field of interest.  Where no such organisation exists an individual may decide to become the founder of a new organisation and build capacity.

Whether helping at point of need or seeking systemic change, at some stage it is very likely that there will need to be contact with the political process.  It may be at local or national level.  Again it is with people who represent  the organisation.  Government works through people. I know, it is an obvious point, but challenge has to be directed at those individuals responsible for the status quo and with the ability to effect change. See the white of their eyes! (It is important to note that influence within an organisation may be outside the formal structure of the body.)  The purpose of contact  may concern allocation of resources or changes in policy or legislation.  Such contact is challenging, often bruising. For christians seeking to play out the tenets of progressive or liberation theology challenge and/or confrontation is a given.

• 
  

• 
  

On being a prophet or a subversive nuisance

'When presence becomes subversive: lead with integrity in inherited systems.' Anon

Readers of this blog will understand that 'my theology' (rather pretentious) is a melange, mixture, mozaic of socialism, humanism, postmodernism, liberation theology and deconstructivism.  Whether it is christian theology I leave others to judge. I prefer to describe myself as a follower of the teaching attributed to Jesus as set out in the synoptic gospels.  What matters to me is the quest for social justice, for helping individuals at the point of need: not following church dogma, doctrine, creeds or tradition.  I do not perceive the tenets of christianity leading to a ticket to heaven: rather I consider following the teaching attributed to Jesus encapsulated in the phrase love your neighbour as being the key concept to be followed.

A few quotations illustrate my understanding of progressivism.

Christian theology needs to speak of social revolution, not reform; of liberation, not development; of socialism, not the modernisation of the prevailing system. Gustavo Gutierrez

The poverty of the poor is not a call to generous relief action, but a demand that we go and build a different social order. Gustavo Gutierrez

Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves; ensure justice for those being crushed. Yes, speak up for the poor and the helpless, and see that they gain justice.  Proverbs 31:8-9

History will judge societies and governments - and their institutions - not by how big they are or how well they serve the rich and the powerful, but by how effectively they respond  to the needs of the poor and the helpless. Cesar Chavez

Any religion that professes to be concerned about the souls of men and is not concerned about the slums that damn them, the economic conditions that strangle them, and the social conditions that cripple them, is a spiritually moribund religion awaiting burial.  Martin Luther King Jr.

The issue for me is that a theological approach casting doubt on the existence of an anthropomorphic god, on the concept of god answering prayer, on the idea of an eternal life in heaven (or hell), places me outside the mainstream of thought of my church  denomination.   The concepts of evangelical biblical fundamentalism and  aspects of liberal theology are ones I cannot subscribe to without losing my integrity (such as it is). 

I am reminded of this:

As an institution, the church is not structurally free to drive systemic change. Those within it who try to do so — who name root causes, challenge policy, or threaten stability — tend to become liabilities. They are managed, marginalised, or pushed out. Peter Hobbs.

Shades of the fate of the Living in Love and Faith process in the Church of England.

It's about community and individuals: not church structures.

'The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state.  It must be the guide and critic of the state, and never its tool.  If the church does not recapture its prophetic zeal, it will become an irrelevant social club without moral or spiritual authority.'

Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

I have written before that the major task of the church is to advance the teaching attributed to Jesus to love our neighbour and therefore assist individuals at point of need and press governments for systemic change to achieve social justice.  It is in this context I commend the following passages:

'It is a source of shame that food, warmth and shelter — the basics of life — are now routinely being provided by churches and voluntary organisations. That should never have become normal. It represents a profound failure of the state.

Where I think the tension sits is here: the institutional church itself has become part of the stabilising machinery of government. It is protected, sanctioned, and relied upon precisely because it absorbs social strain without fundamentally challenging the system that produces it. That protection comes with limits.

As an institution, the church is not structurally free to drive systemic change. Those within it who try to do so — who name root causes, challenge policy, or threaten stability — tend to become liabilities. They are managed, marginalised, or pushed out. Not because they lack faith or compassion, but because institutions prioritise continuity and survival. In that sense, the absence of a dynamic for real change in the churches is not accidental. It is structural.

That doesn’t diminish the gospel. It clarifies the difference between the church as an institution and the body of Christ.

Biblically, justice, care for the poor, and truth-telling are non-negotiable. But historically, those movements have rarely been led by protected institutions. They have emerged from communities of believers acting beyond institutional control — people willing to risk security, status, and approval in order to follow Jesus faithfully.

So the question may not be “why aren’t the churches driving change?” but “where is the body of Christ willing to act without institutional cover?”

Real hope lies there. In organised communities of conscience. In believers who refuse to let charity replace justice. In people prepared to hold power to account even when it costs them position or protection.

That, to me, is what it means to follow Jesus now — not waiting for institutions to move, but becoming the church in action, aligned with the poor rather than with power.'

Peter Hobbs

I commend the following passage from an article by Colin Coward.

'The problem I perceive the Church of England to have is, if you like, an absence of truly woke priests and people who transform lives and worship by being as communally creative as possible, an energy that is repeatedly engaging with and challenging the institution and bishops and leaders. It’s incredibly demanding. Until the groups campaigning for true diversity and inclusion understand that change happens when we model and live it, rather than when we persuade the institution and General Synod to vote for change, progress towards full equality for women LGBTQIA+ people and equal marriage is going to be painfully slow.'

In the Church of England meaningful, lasting change will only come from the grassroots, from within parishes, by actions of individuals embracing and acting upon progressive theological concepts, but above all by listening to the concerns of people in the communities the parish serves.  The application of liberation theology would not be amiss.

A call to action!

 

Churches are engaged in sterling work in so many ways to assist people that it is putting a strain on them both in terms of people and finance.   The situations  individuals find themselves in are the most difficult for many years.  Who would have thought twenty years ago that great numbers of the population have to rely on foodbanks and warm areas.  It would have been unthinkable then  to suggest  that the basics of food and appropriate shelter have  to be provided by the voluntary sector for so many.  The state is failing in its duty and that needs calling out in the strongest terms.

There will  be the need always  for voluntary organisations to assist people, but it should not have to be for the very basics of life.  I have witnessed a long slow deterioration in so many ways : poor roads, housing provision, homelessness, NHS creaking, utilities failing, poverty as bad as ever (and destitution much worse).  To my mind it is no wonder that people are turning away from the main political parties.  Brexit was a warning about the discontent of large sections of the population. Reform is giving that discontent an organised political voice.  

How is the position to be remedied, or are we past a point of no return?  I so hope not.  It's clear to me that we need systemic change, to change our priorities, to advance the claims of the  have-nots.  The Reform Party is not the answer.  Churches are on the ground and well-versed in the tensions in communities, of peoples' fears and aspirations.  They are well-placed to speak with authority on the issues and champion the cause of the poor, deprived and  marginalised.  The pillars of helping individuals and social justice are  biblical concepts in the Old and New Testaments.  But where in the churches is the dynamic to drive a campaign for change?   Sadly I do not see it.  I do so hope ++Sarah   will steer the Church of England towards an emphasis on pastoral care and the example of Jesus.

Peter Hobbs comments:  

John, I agree with much of what you’ve said. It is a source of shame that food, warmth and shelter — the basics of life — are now routinely being provided by churches and voluntary organisations. That should never have become normal. It represents a profound failure of the state.

Where I think the tension sits is here: the institutional church itself has become part of the stabilising machinery of government. It is protected, sanctioned, and relied upon precisely because it absorbs social strain without fundamentally challenging the system that produces it. That protection comes with limits.

As an institution, the church is not structurally free to drive systemic change. Those within it who try to do so — who name root causes, challenge policy, or threaten stability — tend to become liabilities. They are managed, marginalised, or pushed out. Not because they lack faith or compassion, but because institutions prioritise continuity and survival. In that sense, the absence of a dynamic for real change in the churches is not accidental. It is structural.

That doesn’t diminish the gospel. It clarifies the difference between the church as an institution and the body of Christ.

Biblically, justice, care for the poor, and truth-telling are non-negotiable. But historically, those movements have rarely been led by protected institutions. They have emerged from communities of believers acting beyond institutional control — people willing to risk security, status, and approval in order to follow Jesus faithfully.

So the question may not be “why aren’t the churches driving change?” but “where is the body of Christ willing to act without institutional cover?”

Real hope lies there. In organised communities of conscience. In believers who refuse to let charity replace justice. In people prepared to hold power to account even when it costs them position or protection.

That, to me, is what it means to follow Jesus now — not waiting for institutions to move, but becoming the church in action, aligned with the poor rather than with power.