2010/03/09

Faithworks 360 Conference (Part 2)

Sorry this has been slow coming: I intended a series of quick reflections, but somehow events overtook me.

I was tired/jet-lagged for the first session, and my laptop let me down, so my notes are poor. But I was immediately struck by the 'can do' attitude of those who spoke - David Lammy MP, Robert Beckford, and the ever energetic Steve Chalke.

I guess the take-home message of that session was that society and community are broken and needy. Churches have a long history of making communities work, of being at the heart of the community, and that's where they need to aim to be once again. And there are grounds for encouragement, because lots of people have demonstrated that faith-based charities are rather good at this. Evidently, there is much objective evidence that initiatives born out of faith - specifically Christian faith; not necessarily ruling out others - are more effective than others. For government agencies they represent better value for money: simple as that. Faith works !

This is why faithworks is promoting its '2010 declaration': the objective is to challenge the next British Prime Minister (whoever that may be) to recognise what Christians are doing, acknowledge that they do it because of their faith and to do more of this. Conference participants were invited to sign the declaration, and to encourage others to do so. So here we go, gentle reader: if you are a British voter, please click the link, and add your name.

Chalke went so far as to say that there are more opportunities than ever - and specifically in the next five years - for churches to get involved and be truly at the heart of work in their communities. So Faithworks has two perspectives: helping Churches and Christian charities to reach their own potential; and speaking to Government about how to help partnerships to happen.

In another session, he talked about the efforts involved in getting the Oasis Academy set up in Enfield. This is a (largely) government-funded secondary school, a brilliant brand new building which was hosting the conference. They run not only a school, but also community workers, a church, and so on - and are planning a health centre on adjacent land. Truly this is the embodiment of this 360-degree vision for engaging with the whole community, with faith in Christ unambiguously at the centre.

In trying to set this up, he had met great skepticism from the local council: Oasis is known as an Evangelical group: would they be using public money to proselytize? Would they discriminate? After much debate, he had remembered The Faithworks Charter which he had written some years previously (!). The charter begins with a clause which is a commonplace notion for public sector organisations, but a true breath of fresh air as a Christian statement:

We will provide an inclusive service to our community by:

1. Serving and respecting all people regardless of their gender, marital status, race, ethnic origin, religion, age, sexual orientation or physical and mental capability.

It's unsurprising as a 21st century satement, but as the first clause of a Christian identity statement ... I could imagine some debate. The next clauses, likewise...

2. Acknowledging the freedom of people of all faiths or none both to hold and to express their beliefs and convictions respectfully and freely, within the limits of the UK law.

3. Never imposing our Christian faith or belief on others.

Within a few days of forwarding this to all members of the council, Chalke got his Academy approved.


I have lots more notes to condense down to this blog. I'll try to carry on to Part 3 soon.

4 comments:

americanRuth said...

I agree that statement 1 could occasion debate, but I would think that 3 would too - *much* debate! I suppose in part it depends on how you interpret the word "impose". Is "calling people to faith in Jesus Christ" (a phrase from the C of E's Mission-Shaped Church document) the same as "imposing our Christian faith on others"?

Andrew said...

:)

I would think that "imposing" would mean putting it where it wasn't welcome; using it as a condition of aid; manipulating vulnerable people (or children) into accepting it; proverbially shoving it down people's throats.

Anything that can be politely declined isn't imposed - and the converse is true, also.

I rather suspect that some Christian groups do quite a lot of imposing - by accident or design.

seethroughfaith said...

american Ruth is a friend of mine here in Finland and she put me onto your blog again Andrew :)

I wasn't at the conference but heard Brian Mclaren speak over at Oasis (Waterloo) on the Sunday night - and agree that Steve Chalk is energetic. He inspires me.

American Ruth - I don't think that calling people to faith is the same as imposing - and Andrew I hear you when you say that some Christian groups do quite a lot of imposing by accident or even by design (sigh) ...

but I do think when asked that it's important to be permitted to say we choose to treat people with respect (whatever their own beliefs, gender, sexual orientation etc) because we are Christians ... and it's also important to offer the same 'perks' to non Christians as Christians. So yay for what Oasis are trying to do - breakdown the separation of holy and secular and be Christians in all aspects ... we need that. we all need that.

Church isn't somewhere we go .. it's who we are :)

It's one thing I really don't get with the Southern Baptist home schooling set up ... the lack of willingness (as I see it) to be incarnational and in the world but not seduced by it.

Andrew said...

@seethroughfaith,

Welcome again!

I think you're right: Oasis/Faithworks are doing a good inclusive thing - and at the same time being uncompromising in discussing why they're doing it.

That seems a good way around: elsewhere, too often the "imposing" becomes the story, instead of the grace.