Some thoughts on associating

I don’t tend to join things. 

I do belong to English Heritage (it’s more proletarian than The National Trust and no prickly tweed underwear required). We get value out of our membership because as a family we enjoy clambering over castle walls and crawling into chambered cairns.  I belong to the AA, although each year I wonder whether a much cheaper roadside recovery club would offer a better deal.  Despite being a political animal, I have not belonged to a political party since I was a student – sadly, in making Labour electable again, Blair’s party moved to the right where it remains, indistinguishable from the Conservatives and their oh-so-desperate-for-power coalition partners.  And, of course I do belong to my local church but perhaps that isn’t such a surprise...

It’s just that I have seen rather a lot of membership organisations from the other side.  For a while I was chair of a national association in the early years field, which included the big five children’s charities – household names all - as well as hundreds of local groups. For six years I also had the fun of creating and directing an intermediary body – an association of member charities – with a constituency of around 600 organisations.  So I know a bit about associations, networks and agencies that exist to support, resource and equip others. Nowadays I only join things that offer good-value services that will help me to do my job or enjoy my spare time but, and this is the key, with a strong preference to those where policy and direction is shaped as much by the members as by the trustees. 

In our Baptist world, our regional associations are set to grow in significance as the central resource at Didcot reduces in size and influence.  How can the experience of intermediary bodies in the wider world speak to our associations?  Here are some early thoughts, offered for discussion:

1.       In every association, there will be those seeking reform and those looking simply to fine-tune what has served well in the past. Why not bring together those pressing for a different future as sounding boards for possible change? We need to encourage respectful co-operation between change agents and status-quo seekers to get the best out of both since neither holds a monopoly on truth.

2.       Significant change only tends to arise from a compelling vision, a crisis, or both. Recent changes in our Baptist Union were driven by a financial (and, I would suggest, a management) crisis.  While we cannot control every aspect of the external environment in which we operate, we really do not want to be at the mercy of crises.  As we now see from BUGB, when you allow crisis to be the catalyst for change, you seldom have the resources or the time to bring about change well.  Therefore, a new vision – inspired by the Holy Spirit, we hope - is the only reliable change force we have.  But the naming of this vision does not have to be top-down or the preserve of those at the centre. 

3.       If you are the one who is recognised as ‘the leader’ then there is a strong temptation to think that you both need to generate all possible solutions to the strategic direction of the association and drive them forwards.  I believe that we do need ‘champions’ for change but these may well be the Mavericks on the edges, uncomfortable though that may be for those in the centre. Mavericks cannot be contained in committees or by standing orders. President Harry Truman's remarks about J. Edgar Hoover (Google it: too rude for this blog) are apposite here.

4.       So how then to create ways in which others can re-imagine Baptist associations? A lesson to be learned from the management world is that successful leaders ‘unfreeze’ the status quo to prepare for strategic change. They create anticipation, like the music in a film builds tension. So in our associations, what mood music are we hearing now, building anticipation for a different future? 

5.       Associations will be weak if all the key players have the same skills mix, e.g. pastors. We need strong teams that are filled with diverse members who have a commitment to the purpose of the association but are each capable of bringing different skills and constructively challenging others. The best short course of all those I have ever been on is the Mennonites’ Bridge Builders course, which is to do with handling conflict within the church.  Their first lesson?  Conflict is both inevitable and potentially healthy. We should expect sparky debate! Encourage everyone to disagree creatively. Well-handled conflict helps build clarity of vision and plan. 

6.       Finally, leaders in associations may need to treat the approbation of those around them with care. As someone once said: the warm sense of everything going well may sometimes be the body temperature at the centre of the herd.

Death in Woolwich

A week ago, an off-duty British soldier was killed on the streets of south London. It seems that his Help the Heroes t-shirt was enough to identify him as a soldier.  The attack was not  directed at him for his own sake. He simply represented the British military and the government; the country and values system that was so hated by the two alleged perpetrators of the murderous attack. The soldier’s name was Lee Rigby.

Already much has been written about this event. I think any speculation by me on what might have led men to commit such an act - to believe that is is somehow justified - would add nothing.  Yet one man’s death on the streets of Woolwich has been noted by friends of mine around the world, each with a different perspective.  I have jotted down here their immediate thoughts and reactions spoken to me on hearing the news.  I have not asked their permission, so the comments are not attributable to named people.

The first is from a Muslim living in the Middle East, who studied in London:

“Disenfranchised, radicalised Muslims have other issues. They don’t exist because they follow a certain faith. The scary bit is, anyone can just walk up to someone on the streets of London and behead them in daylight while others watch....that’s the death of humanity;  it’s very sad.” 

A Muslim living and working in south London:

“Sorry to hear about the recent London killing.  I truly condemn such acts; it is horrific. They should hang these ********……  I think it is important that the government finds out these kind of hidden brainwashing institutes and root them out. These kind of people never let us live peacefully in our old country [Pakistan] and not even here.”

A Christian living in Pakistan, facing the risk of persecution, commented:

“And I got news that a UK army man was slaughtered on the road.  Oh my God.  Please make aware your white [English] people. I don't want to see UK become like [Moorish] Spain [in the middle ages]. Don't repeat the history.  You know what they did in Spain. They killed and had Spanish wives.  Today target was an army man; next would be a civilian and then these things may be common; finally a UK Muslim state.  Sharia Law will be imposed.”

Finally, a Muslim human rights lawyer living in the UK:

“What worries me is the silence of some, and conditional condemnation of others. I’m talking about ordinary individuals, not organisations which issue press releases. I am critical of UK foreign policy but we just cannot shape it out of fear of lunatics. We will see from the government shortly a renewed effort to pass ‘Snooper’s Charter’ styled legislation [enabling intelligence agencies and police to see the content of all emails; until recently the proposed legislation had been withdrawn owing to civil liberties concerns.].”

What's on the box?

I heard this week that a good friend has recently discovered The West Wing, having started to watch this from the beginning on DVD as relaxation after a heavy week of ministry. I am envious of someone encountering this for the first time! This was one of those significant television experiences, like Thirtysomething or Hill Street Blues in the 80s and NYPD Blue in the 90s:  one of the firmer landmarks for navigating each week.

In the last couple of years, this role has been firmly occupied by each of the three series of The Killing.  This production from Denmark was compelling TV. My wife is well aware of my feelings for leading actress Sofie Grabol, so we only need acknowledge that and swiftly move on.  Swedish police drama series Arne Dahl, airing currently, comes close to the quality of The Killing, with an interesting ensemble cast, some dark crimes (is it always twilight in Scandinavia?) and some understated humour.  We never got into Borgen - was this good? 

The other outstanding piece of drama, this time from the US, remains Justified – now in its 3^rd season on UK screens. In the King household, the week falls into two halves: before and after each week’s episode.  If you had told me 3 years ago that I would be a fan of a cop show set in rural, poor white Kentucky or that I would be into Bluegrass music I would have dismissed the idea. By the time a drama reaches its third series, you have to start to wonder if it will increasingly fall back on to a formula but the writers and cast seem to be doing well so far. Both hero and villains have flaws. The baddies are, at times, breathtakingly stupid but retain enough malign character to be convincing. And the rugged Harlan County in Kentucky is the major non-speaking supporting act.

If you’re inclined to dismiss Bluegrass, as I would have done, check out YouTube tracks of Gangstagrass, Alison Krauss and Union Station, Horse Feathers (thanks to Ethan for putting me on to them) or Brad Paisley’s version of “You’ll never leave Harlan alive” here. Love it or hate it, Bluegrass has more depth than I had given it credit for previously.

The only UK drama we are watching at the moment is Scott & Bailey – strong female leads, good storylines, one lead character deeply flawed and one the steady rock.

Church from Scratch - a congregational study

I recently completed a dissertation based upon Church from Scratch, examined from the viewpoint of traditional understandings of the incarnation. This is a congregational study and includes insights from ten interviews. The full text can be obtained here.

Please feel free to make any comments you may have here or to question aspects - I would welcome a debate.

Faith and politics - some questions

On the sofa in the lounge of a student house in Bradford this week I came across a copy of the Economist dated April this year. One article to catch my eye was about Margaret Thatcher's faith.  You can read the article here.  The writer makes two main points: firstly, that Thatcher was the last Prime Minister openly to embrace some serious faith in God and, secondly, that she abandoned her low church roots in favour of a higher Anglicanism as she climbed the political ladder. Of course that didn't prevent her from savagely attacking the Anglican hierarchy at times, not least Archbishop Runcie - a decorated war hero - for his compassion towards the families of 'enemies.'

1979 was the first general election in which I had a vote and Thatcher was the main political fixture of the following 10 years. There then followed the bland John Major before the arrival of Tony Blair. I don't think we had any clue about Blair's faith before he was elected and Alastair Campbell famously advised the press (and Blair, according to Campbell's diaries) that we "Don't do God."  I take this to mean that faith as motivation or ground is entirely acceptable but the overt embracing of any faith which is then open to political scrutiny runs a serious risk of unravelling. Blair's faith also went on a journey, in this case from Anglicanism towards his wife's Roman Catholicism. I can remember the point when I first thought that Blair would seek admission to the RC church only after he left office. My reaction then was that he had sacrificed integrity for expediency and I have not changed my mind since.

Blair went on the Michael Parkinson show in March 2006 and said this when asked about his decision to invade Iraq:

 "The only way you can take a decision like that is to try to do the right thing according to your            conscience. I think if you have faith about these things, then you realise that that judgement is made by other people... and if you believe in God, it's made by God as well." When asked if he had prayed to God on the matter, he replied: "I don't want to go into that... you struggle with your own conscience about it... in the end, you do what you think is the right thing."

It would be silly not to acknowledge some aspects of the work of both these Prime Ministers. Yet I despised most of Thatcher's policies and I came to distrust Blair, who I suspected was overawed by his position and tried to make up for that. I am glad that in the UK we do not have much truck with 'Christian' parties or the horrid religious Right as they do in the United States. I am delighted that, quietly and without fuss, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs (and I'd better say, Humanists!) contribute greatly to our political life in councils and governing bodies, as well as in Parliament. People who differ politically but share the same desire to serve others for the public good.

But did it make any difference that the two most influential British Prime Ministers of the late 20th Century are both identified with their faith? And what might we learn from their example about how faith and public service may be linked?