Literature Review: 6000 words – Keith Foster:

Research Subject: How might gaining an understanding of UK urban social capital inform a contextual theology?

Introduction

This literature review sets out to give an early preliminary account of the key ‘voices’

and literature sources that will inform the above referenced research topic. With

regards the structure of this literature review, following a brief summary of the host

and ‘pilot’ research communities, the paper will continue by considering the key

theorist voices within the fields of social capital and contextual theology, moving on

to identify and succinctly summarise linked and related research to date. These peer

research sources will have a twofold purpose; a short-term purpose of helping to

identify any potential ‘gaps’ in current research within this research field (where UK

urban social capital meets a contextual theology), in addition to a medium-term

purpose of providing a platform for empirical and comparative triangulation against

which any research findings of this project might be compared. All of this will need to

be underpinned with an awareness of the potential constraints of the host community

(Bethel Church) being from an evangelical tradition (see Foster: 2016) whilst also

seeking to identify several related sub-questions that might help sharpen the

research focus. This will lead onto a conclusion section that will consider earlier

identified gaps within the current research feeding into the recommendation of an

appropriate empirical research methodology for any early pilot project.

The Research Communities:

This research project sees two communities come together: Bethel Church

Coventry1 and (for the recommended pilot project at least) the Spon End estate,

Coventry (see Appendix A). Bethel church was formed as an independent church in

1937 within an evangelical tradition that has ‘existed in Britain since the 1730s’

(Bebbington, 1989:1).

1 www.bethelcoventry.org.uk

1

Like many churches within this tradition, Bethel church (the host research

community) puts great emphasis on the four ‘special marks’ of conversionism,

activism, biblicism and crucicentrism.2 The overriding authority of scripture over

everything is an important characteristic of the host community; a strong evangelical

legacy out of the reformation sola scriptura debate (George, 1988:315). Over recent

years, Bethel church has begun to develop a new approach to its local community

with a number of its leadership being exposed to a Missio Dei theology that has

challenged the evangelical attractional norms that had characterised the church

since its foundation (Foster 2016, Hardy, 2016, Flett,2010:35-77). This has not

diluted its biblicist emphasis but rather has challenged the host community to

consider (through the lens of scripture) a more incarnational3 approach to local

mission. The importance of understanding a church’s foundational ‘stories’ is brought

out by Rogers, seeing such stories ultimately impacting a church’s hermeneutic,

expected horizons and subsequent practice (2015:128-135).

The Spon End estate in Coventry is situated half a mile off junction seven of the ring

road adjacent to Coventry city centre (see Appendix A). Having carried out some

local quantitative research in 2014 as part of the church’s recent fund raising

initiative, statistics revealed Spon End to be:

In the top 3.1% of the most deprived lower super output areas in England by reference to the 2010 indices of deprivation (with) concerns around low income, poor health, weak education and inadequate living environments all of which rank in the top 10% nationally (Bethel Church: 2014)

Such statistics raise early questions around how people might feel about living in

such a place? Which factors impact their sense of well-being or community

belonging? Such questions (and many others) raised within the social sciences has

led to research into what a number have termed ‘social capital’. This literature review

will now go on to give some definition to this term.

2 Conversionism emphasising the importance of the changed life, Biblicism – the centrality and importance of the Bible to inform right living, Activism – the importance of putting faith into practice and crucicentrism – the centrality of the cross3 Incarnational that seeks to be in the local ‘mix’ of the community as opposed to relying on attractional programme based evangelism alone

2

Theorist Voices that Inform:

The two main voices that inform this research are those of social capital and

contextual theology. This research seeks a dialogue between the two, identifying

also other ‘sub-voices’ (religious capital, spiritual capital, secular spiritual capital,

urban theology et al) that have emerged during the conversation over recent years.

The voice of social capital will be allowed to ‘speak first’, then moving on to ‘listen to’

the response of contextual theology, tracking the conversation to date.

Social Capital – What is it?

With regards social capital, an early definition might be desirable. This said, key

thinkers have failed to agree on any single definition and so it will be more helpful to

trace its development from its conception within the secular social sciences through

to its current dialogue with the theological academy. Dr Catherine Campbell in

referring to social capital describes it as, ‘a controversial concept’ (Morrow: 2001),

whilst Sobel asks the question, ‘Can we trust social capital?’ (Sobel: 2002). Despite

the ongoing debate, the conversation pioneers (Bourdieu, Coleman and Putnam)

initiated the discussion which has since continued to gather momentum attracting the

interest of social scientists, governments and theologians. Social scientists debate its

definition and tangibility, governments aim to measure and improve it, whilst

theologians enquire as to their inclusion in its potential enhancement as collectively

they each seek to understand ‘people in community’.

The leading early thinkers with regards social capital were Bourdieu, Coleman and

Putnam (Gauntlett: 2011), each of which present a different perspective of this (still)

debated term and related social concept. Gauntlett summarises the Bourdieu

position with regards social capital as, ‘(the way) in which society is reproduced, and

how the dominant classes retain their position’ (Gauntlett: 2011). So, in this way,

social capital could be perceived by many (particular any who might consider

themselves to be within a social underclass) to be a cultural mechanism of

networking employed by the higher social classes to maintain and advance

themselves within their social network. Additionally (Gauntlett suggests) that as the

most negative of the founding models of thought with regards social capital,

Bourdieu’s assessment would see such social cultural networks as a mechanism to

ensure that, ‘the wrong sort of people don’t enter their networks’ (Bourdieu: 1986).

3

Coleman offered a broader definition of social capital (over and above simply the

protection of the elite classes) in the sense that he saw its value in all communities

be it amongst the elite or marginalised as a, ‘resource based on trust and shared

values, (that) develops from the weaving-together of people in communities’

(Coleman,1988:96). For Coleman, social capital is a localised, non-transferrable

community resource specific to each community that is not only shaped by the local

cultural norms and values but also used as a ‘capital asset’ which an individual (if so

motivated) could put to great affect for personal gain be that in economic

development or in relation to related human capital (one’s own skills and expertise).

Indeed, the inability to nurture community and passed on norms, mediated through

the development of social capital (a community glue) might mean skillsets and social

and/or economic development (according to Coleman) could be seriously impacted:

If the human capital possessed by parents is not complemented by social capital embodied in family relations, it is irrelevant to the child’s educational growth that the parent has a great deal, or a small amount, of human capital (Coleman,1988:110)

A more populist writer on the subject (Putnam) expanded the rational definitions of

Bourdieu and Coleman giving a much broader application to social capital. In his

landmark article Bowling Alone (1995) Putnam suggested a direct causal affect

between the decline in social and civic engagement in the USA and the decline of

society, democracy and quality of life in general (Sobel, 2002: 140). According to

Putnam, the decline in social networking, membership of local groups, religious

organisations et al, in preference for people ‘bowling alone’, has had broad

implications across education, general measured attainment and a sense of

community and belonging. Sobel is critical of Putnam’s methods of analysis,

suggesting that Putnam confuses ‘cause and effect’ and offers only a positive view of

social capital with its increase being related to positive enhanced outcomes (Sobel,

2002:140-141). This research sees the collective views of Bourdieu, Coleman and

Putnam as foundational and important to keep in mind. Whilst the potential for an

exclusivist approach should caution one’s definition (Bourdieu), this would betray the

broader and more positive developmental definitions of Coleman and Putnam.

4

Power and Willmot define social capital within two main categories, namely bonding

and bridging (Power and Willmot, 2007:6). Bonding social capital (according to

Power and Willmot) is that level of social interaction on an intense, personal level

that is seen in local relationships (known people, proximity of reliable friends,

babysitters etc) Meanwhile bridging capital represents a much more broader

membership and connection with local groups (Schools, Children’s centres et al)

within the area. Power and Willmot suggest that bonding and bridging capital are

essential in forming people’s sense of ‘community’ and belonging, an important

consideration for local policy makers and stakeholder groups (Power & Willmot,

2007:6).

This research will need to be mindful of the potential for exclusivist social networks

(not least within the host evangelical community) yet will endeavour to seek a

broader collective interpretation that could identify the underpinning social

relationships and networks within (initially) the local urban community and their local

and wider affects. An early ‘lay’ definition at this stage might be to define social

capital as:

The lifeblood of an identifiable community that possesses varying elements of social, economic and spiritual interaction, the levels of each of which need to be carefully assessed with regards their impact on the ‘health’ and wellbeing of the overall community and that of each individual.

In this sense, this research aimed at gaining an understanding of the social capital

(lifeblood) of a UK urban community might be considered an exercise in urban

haematology where each element of the lifeblood (Bonding, Bridging, Human,

Religious, Spiritual et al) have important levels of contribution. As the definition

above suggests, the assessment of social capital is not a secular one alone. Pattison

outlines the importance of bringing a theological voice to the secular conversation

asking rhetorically whether theology has, ‘any contribution to make’? (Pattison,

2007:197). A 2006 research paper produced by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation

Faith as Social Capital, Connecting or Dividing? encouragingly highlights the

growing interest of the UK government in social capital and the role of faith

communities (2006:1) and researches the level of cooperation between the secular

and faith based academies. Such cooperation is seen as part of a larger initiative

around the input of faith communities into public policy, landmarked with the

establishment of the Inner Cities Religious Council (ICRC) in 1992 (2006:1).

5

One of the early conclusions of the paper is that:

It is clear, therefore, that the UK government has identified ‘Faith communities’ as potentially key ‘containers’ of social capital in achieving its targets for urban regeneration, social inclusion and community cohesion (2006:2).

Whilst this can be celebrated, such broad faith group acceptance is based upon a

multi-faith, non-judgemental partnership. A caution for this research is that it seeks to

ask how an understanding of social capital might inform a contextual theology,

viewed from within an evangelical host community. This is an important caution for

this project as government invitations to contribute can easily be reversed. How

might the host research community (Bethel Church) be able to manage this tension?

This creates several sub-questions that might help sharpen the research focus:

How should the relationship between faith organisations and their local authority be managed?

Does the fear of being withdrawn from the conversation force a ‘stealth’ evangelism?

Can faith based organisations that desire to do so, openly declare their Gospel objectives without there being an ‘Ephesian riot’4 or simply ‘battling until the dark forces of Narnia are overthrown’?

How much does providing a quality service provide a platform for openly communicating faith?

Is it simply that the church should be satisfied with contributing to a ‘better community’?

These questions need to be kept in mind as underpinning considerations within the

research conversation. To assist this, key theological voices have entered the

conversation in recent decades and it is to those voices that this literature review

now turns.

Theology- Joining the Conversation:

Baker is one such voice speaking into this extensive area of public policy, more

specifically social capital and the church’s engagement within this broad

conversation. In an early paper, Baker identifies the challenge of faith based

communities engaging with what he terms ‘non-religious partners’ (2005:4).

4 Acts 19:23-41 depicts a riot in Ephesus as the increase in those converting to Christ from their local Greek devotion to the goddess Diana leads to an economic downturn in local trades related to Diana worship.

6

In order to describe this engagement, Baker introduces the concepts of religious and

spiritual capital, defining how:

these terms highlight the overlapping, yet distinctive ways in which faith communities engage with mainly secular understandings of regeneration, civil society and urban renaissance (2005:4).

Baker goes on to suggest that spiritual and religious capital provide the ‘why’ and the

‘what’ with regards the contribution of the faith community to a local urban social

capital. Baker defines this in the sense of spiritual capital speaking of the motivation

and theology behind such contribution with the religious capital being the practical

‘what’ or outworking of such motivations. Whilst a number of a faith based

organisation’s ‘why’s’ and ‘what’s’ may align with local government objectives (for a

safer more coherent community et al) Baker acknowledges that, ‘others are more

distinctive and can create dissonance and discomfort’ (2005:5). It is this aspect of

the host community’s ‘why’s’ and ‘what’s’ that will strongly inform the basis of this

research project, looking to consider not only the host community motivations and

subsequent praxis but how the (initially local) urban community and other interested

stakeholders might view such motivations and contributions. This said, there is

increasing reference to what is being referred to as progressive localism, a ‘meeting

ground’ within what some are referring to as a post-secular society where faith is no

longer assumed to be operating within its own ‘sacred sphere’ but is increasingly

being identified as having a valuable contribution to make (Baker:2014). Schneider

identifies that faith communities, ‘have been central to the U.S. social welfare, health,

human services and education systems from their beginnings’ (2016:1). This said,

Schneider identifies the ‘ebb and flow’ with regards faith based organisations being

able to use their (what Schneider terms) ‘religious elements’ in government

sponsored contracts (2016:6) dependent upon the government in office at any one

time. Schneider outlines the potential of social capital in the form of ‘added value’

where an individual (say from a specific faith based organisation) with a specific

skillset or expertise may be able to ‘negotiate’ and straddle across all the interested

community stakeholders as they each identify the valuable contribution made by that

individual (2016:11). This would align itself with Coleman’s earlier definition of a local

community asset.

7

Whilst the ‘value added’ within practical terms (what Baker refers to as religious

capital) is an important factor with regard government and community stakeholders

looking to include faith based organisations within the ‘local conversation’, the faith

based ‘why’s’ and specific motivations need to be considered. Part of this research

will seek to ask how a host community from an evangelical tradition, possessing a

clear Gospel distinctive5, might seek to enter and maintain itself within the local

community conversation in a way that does not compromise its faith position and

motivations. The alternative questions could be around the necessity for any

compromise in the light of a bigger ‘theological picture’ that the host community may

have to consider within its theological contextual position that motivate its

engagement within the local community.

One important concept that has recently been introduced as potentially key in the

negotiation between religious and secular spaces is that of secular spiritual capital

(Baker, Miles-Watson:2008). Seen as an important tool in the ongoing negotiation of

community and public spaces for the common good, the paper defines secular

spiritual capital (SCC) as:

the set of individual and corporate/community values and actions produced by the dynamic interaction between spiritual and social capital within secular fields of activity (2008:7).

Baker/Miles-Watson refer to Swinton’s work on secular spirituality which has an

underlying assumption that spirituality is universal and so in that sense is not simply

the possession of the church. Thus, ‘we all have spiritual needs’ (Swinton, 2001:23).

This sees ‘spirituality’ as the overriding characteristic which by some may be

expressed through ‘religion’. Theologically reflecting on this, the seventeenth chapter

of the New Testament book of Acts comes to mind where in Athens the Apostle Paul

can recognise the spirituality and religiosity of the local people, seeking to use this as

a basis for ongoing dialogue.6 Within the research host community, such a

theological reflection based upon a biblical platform will be an important

consideration as they consider everything through such a biblicist legacy.

5 For the evangelical community, this is largely expressed in terms around the good news about the life, death, resurrection and return of Jesus6 Acts 17:16-34 sees the Apostle Paul addressing the local Stoic and Epicurean philosophers with his distinctive Gospel message whilst being able to acknowledge the spirituality of his listeners.

8

Such a reflection creates an important platform of discussion for both the host and

local research communities. Baker and Miles-Watson see the recognition of secular

spiritual capital as important in being able to identify common ground and

motivations. The spiritual ‘why’ capital motivation of the faith based community can

resonate (according to Baker/Miles-Watson) with the secular spiritual capital of other

community stakeholders who also seek the well-being of the local community and

whom may be driven by equivalent ethical and moral values. By way of further

definition in this context:

Secular spiritual capital in these contexts refers to those values, visions and ethical systems that motivate engagement with social capital (2008:20).

The ongoing challenge for the host community of this research project is to be willing

to negotiate and look for such common ground when seeking to partner and

participate within local community initiatives in response to any assessment of

current levels of local community social capital. This said, it will also be important for

the host community to identify those positive contributions it can bring that are more

associated with its own congregational community (sacrificial selfless service,

consideration of the ‘other’ et al). As this literature review moves on to consider how

contextual theology might inform the research conversation, such congregational

hermeneutical characteristics will be important as Bethel Church seeks to engage

within a world that could be said to be driven by a capitalist eschatology

(Pattison:2007). The host community might benefit from the identification of any

unique contribution it can bring and consider how it might utilise this as a platform for

discussion and ongoing negotiation.

Contextual Theology:

The second major voice informing this literature review is that of contextual theology.

Bevans asks the question, ‘What has contextual theology to offer to the church of the

twenty-first century?’ (2011:1). As per the considerations with regards social capital,

it would be helpful to frame such a question within a definition. A contextual

theological approach will provide a key voice and medium into the Bethel host

research community as it seeks to make sense of the findings from any research into

the (local) urban social capital and then grapples with how the church might engage

with and communicate into the local research community.

9

In its broadest sense, contextual theology (according to Bevans) focuses on two

major considerations: the experience of the past and the experience of the present

within one’s present context (2011:9). Such an assessment that ‘honours the

experience of context’ is not tied to a one size fits all approach but seeks to

understand, read and effectively communicate in a way that identifies with local

language, symbol and metaphor (2011:11). In effect, a contextual theological

approach gives as much (if not more) attention to the local context as it does to its

own evangel. It is important at this stage to be reminded of the biblicist legacy of the

host research community (Foster:2016) as it will be essential for any research

approach and recommended methodology to be compatible to the host community’s

own hermeneutic. Within his work Models of Contextual Theology (2014), Bevans

outlines six potential theological approaches or models of contextualisation

(methodologically) ranging from the Translation model through to the

Anthropological model.7 The translation model seeks to preserve the core Kernel of

the evangel of the host community which is then spoken ‘into’ the research

community whilst the anthropological model focusses on the existing activity of God

within a community that seeks to discern what He is doing within the lives and

experiences of the research community. Considering the ‘voices’ within social

capital, this would be akin to the host faith community’s own spiritual capital

motivations in conversation with the (Swinton) universal secular spiritual capital of

the research community. With a strong evangelical legacy, Bethel church would

traditionally lean more toward the counter-cultural model that would see its central

Gospel message as potentially coming into conflict with local cultural norms and

practices, applying this hermeneutic of suspicion to all cultures. An important anti-

dote to this becoming a motivation for withdrawal, will be appropriate theological

reflection that respects the host community’s tradition but also seeks to broaden

local engagement possibilities through the introduction of a broader range of

hermeneutical reflections.8 It will be important not to be too prescriptive at this early

research stage. Each voice from within both social capital and contextual theology

must be allowed to be ‘heard’.

7 The other four models are those of praxis, synthetic, transcendental and counter-cultural - 2014:1418 Such reflections as discussed at the 2011 BIAPT symposium on the Bible and Practical Theology.

10

So, whilst a translation model that seeks to preserve the core Gospel message may

seem appealing at this stage, the anthropological model that, ‘makes use of the

insights of social science’ will equally be important as it, ‘tries to understand more

clearly the web of human relationships and meanings that make up human culture

and in which God is present’ (Bevans, 2014:55).

Within the context of this research project, the focus is on UK urban communities.

This refines the theological considerations from a broad contextual discussion into

more localised Urban theological considerations. Such initiatives and forums as The

Faith in the City report (1985) and the Urban Research Group (commissioned by the

then Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey) are examples of the church coming

together to discuss such contextual urban approaches (Sedgwick:1995). The URG

referred to urban theology as, ‘theology after working-class culture’ (1995: xiv)

seeking to answer such questions as: ‘what are the tasks for such a theology today?

What priorities should be mapped out for the urban theologian?’. The essays and

reports within God in the City point to some significant, heart-warming and valuable

work being carried out, much being funded by the Church Urban Fund (1995:6).

Case studies from similar initiatives will be considered within the ‘linked and similar’

research section later within this review, yet an early observation in many such

initiatives is that it is the faith based communities coming up with faith based ideas

and projects funded by faith based charities. This should all be commended, yet the

nuanced considerations of this research paper are to consider how a faith based

host community (Bethel church) might seek to gain a deep understanding of the

‘lifeblood’ (social capital) of its local urban community, seeking to then contextualise

its theology and unique identity within that community. The developing uniqueness of

this research and its broader contribution is beginning to focus on how this might be

achieved in partnership and cooperation with the local community. This is important

whereas there is a danger that the church simply becomes a ‘private provider’ of

local social and community services, which then potentially positions it (from a

community’s perception) alongside local government stakeholders creating a

client/service provider level of relationship. Cloke cautions against this commenting

on the opportunities for Faith Based Organisations (FBO’s) to participate as they,

‘occupy the vacuum of welfare space left behind by retreating central and local

government activity’ (2013:8).

11

Equally, Cloke highlights the danger of FBO autonomy being eroded by various

contractual ‘strings’ attached as they partner with local authorities (2013:9). The

research host community (Bethel church) must be conscious of this tension as it

seeks to protect its unique message and identity yet socially integrate and enhance

local social capital and well-being. Cloke cautions:

We need to be extremely careful not to assume that the locally contextualised practices of FBO welfare and caring activities merely mirror the neoliberal environment in which those contexts are set (2013:11).

The temptation and tendency might be for the faith community to retreat in order to

devise its own strategy that can often lead to a compromised neoliberal approach or

an attractional strategy that seeks to draw local people into the host community’s

own culture. The earlier questions of this literature review (page 6) are seen to be

increasingly relevant within Cloke’s challenge. Pattison broadens this out further as

he challenges theologians to engage with the secular academy (2007:197). Pattison

is critical of the (often) private theological discussions that are by and large

discussions of, ‘confessional theology taught mostly by believers to believers’

(2007:199). This is exasperated (according to Pattison) as such discussions are

conducted, ‘in concepts and language which are complex, technical and obscure to

non-initiates’ (2007:199). Pattison’s challenging conclusion is for theology to, ‘Come

down off its cognitive perch, keep quiet and engage in common discussion using

non-technical language’, in order for its voice to be understood and taken seriously

within the wider secular debate (2007:200). This is a helpful caution into this

research:

How might Bethel church (the host community) keep and maintain its distinctiveness

but embed itself within the local community?

How might the host community use language and metaphor that are engaging and

understandable within its local community discussions?

How might the host community avoid the stereotypical label of ‘service provider’ that

so often characterises local government and associated agencies?

Pears and Cloke provide some helpful early guidance to this research asking how

Christian communities might explore more thoughtful and effective responses to

marginalised people in marginal places (2016:1).

12

Pears and Cloke see the danger of the faith community response as potentially a

naïve collaboration with the structures of society that maintain or even increase the

marginalisation of the poor (2016:1). Their stated preference is to see missional

development moving away from an ‘expansion’ or ‘taking territory’ strategy to one of

‘encounter with the other’ (2016:5). This involves the host community being made

more self-aware of its potential position of ‘power’ and seeking to rather create or

foster one of a partnering negotiation with the ‘other’. Within our considerations this

broadens out one’s contextual considerations (according to Pears/Cloke) to those of,

‘culture, place and power’ (2016:7). Hjalmarson laments the disappearance of ‘place’

in the battle with the global village and promotion of virtual ‘space’ (2015), seeing the

recovery of this precious commodity as central to rediscovering an intimate missional

engagement with the ‘local’. Hjalmarson suggests that the super-fast erosion of

place for vast social and trading (often virtual) space has created a craving by many

to ‘get back to community’ (2015:28). The development of a theology of space will be

a helpful contextual tool for the host community as it seeks to enhance the local

research community social capital. This might include the redevelopment and

celebration of community spaces that (according to Hjalmarson):

Allow us to see through new eyes and re-enter the textures and rhythms, colours and tones, beauty, complexity and severity of the places we dwell (2015:28).

Within what they term the Post-Secular City, Baker and Beaumont highlight the

development and re-emergence of a public space. Moving away from secularism,

this new space, ‘has to negotiate and make space for the re-emergence of public

expressions of religion and spirituality’ (2011:33). One such cause (according to

Baker/Beaumont) is the increasing and changing cultural landscape caused by the

global immigration of religious communities from the South (2011:33), These new

theistic colonies provide great opportunity for theologians to enter the community

conversation and provide valuable insight into such developing communities. This

unique insight could be a helpful contribution of the research host community (Bethel

church) as it seeks to enter the local conversation. Graham and Lowe suggest that

this re-emergence of place provides the ideal opportunity for a ‘new localism’ that,

‘values space and place as the site for constructive partnership (whilst maintaining) a

strong sense of identity’ (2009:129). It is this tension that the host research

community will need to keep in mind.

13

This literature review will now go on to consider and critique some linked and similar

research projects that will be used in the short term to potentially identify any gaps in

this research field (where social capital informs a contextual theology) whilst at the

same time being helpful as comparative findings that this research project can be

triangulated against. The earlier cautions of this literature review (Baker, Pattison,

Pears, Cloke et al) will be used as a gauge against which any linked and similar

research projects can be assessed. It will be important for these assessments to

feed into this research project if the potential pitfalls (be that loss of theological

identity, dilution into the welfare state or other) are to be avoided. This will then lead

into some conclusions which will feed into empirical research considerations as a

basis of an early pilot research project between the host community (Bethel church)

and the local urban research community (Spon End, Coventry).

Linked and Similar Research:

One approach to local community assessment is for the secular authorities and the

faith based organisations to carry out their research in separate silos of activity. Two

such examples of this are found in research carried out by the Office for National

Statistics9 and Barna.10 The ONS research was an extensive national survey that

sought to assess the national well-being of UK people. Whilst not focussed on

specific communities, the striking thing about the survey is its absence and

acknowledgement of the theological voices in the form of spiritual and religious

capital. This aspect is completely ignored. This highlights the importance of faith

based organisations entering the ‘social capital’ conversation. The Barna research

was focussed around people’s attitudes to Jesus, Christians and faith in general.

This was an overt, unashamed set of questionnaires about people’s experiences and

attitudes to Jesus and the Church. Whilst the results were encouraging (2015:18) the

ongoing conversation is still being largely carried out within the theological academy.

Such results that demonstrated a warmth toward Christian faith in general, should

encourage the host research community (Bethel) to seek to positively engage with

the secular academy for:

They don’t just know us (Christians); they like us too, with non-Christians more likely to describe us positively than negatively (2015:18).

9 ONS Measuring national well-being survey, Sept 201610 Barna Talking Jesus research (carried out on behalf of the Church of England, Evangelical Alliance and Hope, 2015

14

The language of this research was striking too (they/us). This creates a sense of

separation and detachment, potentially emphasising the differences as opposed to

the potential of strong collaboration through common desires to enhance such as

local community social capital. Such a platform of cooperation might encourage and

create increasing opportunities for faith/secular community engagement. The Barna

research (of 5,000 people nationally) identified that 67% of the people questioned

knew a practising Christian with a significant proportion describing them in positive

terms (2015:19). This bodes well for community collaboration.

The William Temple Foundation’s three-year research project Faith in Action: The

Dynamic Connection between Spiritual and Religious Capital (Baker, Skinner: 2002-

2005) researched the civil and urban engagement of nine Manchester based

churches/church based organisations. Whilst the research was extensive with

regards the church’s experience of such engagement, no detailed attention was

given with regards any tensions of theological identity that may have been

experienced by any of the groups. The case studies cited in the report reflect largely

on the church’s own perception and self-awareness of the practical struggles

(2005:16-19). These were enhanced by a set of general (and separate)

recommendations for secular and faith based organisations as they each seek to

collaborate for the common social good, increasing their understanding of religious

and spiritual capital (2005:5-6). Whilst this may not have been the core aim of the

research, this tension of church based contribution whilst maintaining one’s

distinctives was ignored. The host research community out of an evangelical tradition

will be keen to understand this tension as it seeks to add local value in the form of

religious capital (fuelled by its spiritual capital motivations) in liaison with local

secular community partners.

Cloke, Beaumont and Williams provide some helpful examples and case study

comparisons as they consider Working Faith: Faith Based Organisations and Social

Justice. Several comparative case studies are compared and contrasted with

regards their approaches to managing the tension between urban social activity and

declaring a Gospel distinctive. One such example is the varying approaches of two

faith organisations to poverty (2013:25-46).

15

The study compares the approaches of Christians Against Poverty (CAP) with that of

Church Action on Poverty (CAoP). Whilst each were founded upon a similar faith

based motivation (spiritual capital), and each operate within the public square

successfully, operationally they function at different levels. CAP works, ‘on an

individual basis’ whilst CAoP works principally at a community wide strategic level.

CAP ‘has a clear commitment to evangelism’ whilst CAoP works primarily from a

standpoint of ‘justice’ challenging ‘the unjust laws decreed by government’ (2013:44).

CAP has received heavy criticism for its overt and unashamed Gospel motivation.

The organisation Advice UK terminated CAP’s six-year membership stating that

CAP’s underpinning Gospel motivation had become ‘incompatible with the

constitutional requirements that advice should be impartial…with no strings attached’

(2013:32). The prayer offered by some CAP debt counsellors during debt

consultancy was critiqued as a form of ‘emotional fee’ for the vulnerable people

seeking debt advice (2013:32). Other comparisons in other social welfare sectors are

compared by Cloke et al (drug addiction, youth provision). Such comparisons raise

the whole question of the appropriateness of evangelism within needs based service

provision where clients are ‘vulnerable’. In all cases within the book, it was the

Christians who were controlling (and often funding) the initiative. The needs

focussed service, funding and Gospel initiative was unashamedly theirs. In the cases

where joint local community forums or focus groups were formed to discuss or tackle

a particular issue, then largely any overt Gospel distinctive was neutralised or side-

lined. The question for this research is focussed around how a host research

community (from an evangelical tradition) might gain an understanding of the local

urban social capital with a view to embedding itself within (and as part) of the

community, whilst still maintaining a contextual Gospel distinctive. Other similar

projects and faith based initiatives abound in a whole array of examples.

Communities, Churches and Social Capital in Northern Ireland (Bacon:2003) gives

some heart-warming examples and case studies of several groups and faith based

organisations providing (largely) needs based services within marginalised areas. Is

it possible for a faith based organisation to embed itself within its local community

without necessarily being attached to a programme of social welfare, to simply

contribute an essential element of the local social capital?

16

Practical theology (according to Cloke/Pears) allows a much broader assessment as

it, ‘is concerned with the unique, the particular, the concrete, this people, this

community, this place, this moment, this neighbour, this question, this need, this

concern’ (2016:14). As this literature review concludes, some broader practical

theological reflections and questions will be asked that will inform an early

recommended empirical research project designed to consider how gaining an

understanding of the (local) urban social capital might inform a contextual theology

that has a clear Gospel distinctive.

Conclusions and Early Research Recommendations:

The clear majority of the case studies considered have by and large been driven by

Christian groups with a needs based agenda. This is very typical as churches seek

to find their ‘role’ within the local community perhaps asking, ‘what is our purpose?’

or ‘what needs based vehicle can we use to draw alongside the community?’. This

raises the whole question of the (earlier mentioned) ‘power’ relationship that this can

create which often, if then used as a vehicle for evangelism can attract public

criticism (as per the CAP case study). Pears and Cloke suggest that a practical

theological approach to such is one that sees the community holistically and one that

is, ‘integral to every aspect of their situations…through thoughtful theological

reflection upon their own experiences (and)…a reflexive involvement in their

neighbourhood’ (2016:15). Building upon the earlier questions (page 6 and 12)

additional questions might inform this research:

Might it be necessary to create more neutral spaces for dialogue that

Baker/Beaumont express in terms of ‘public space’? (2011).

How might the host community manage the ‘power’ relationships of any needs based

service within (and for) the community without this being seen as exploiting the

vulnerable?

A Research Opportunity:

Such collective questions are recommended to be explored within an initial empirical

research pilot project. The opportunity for this might be present in the form of a local

community café (Oasis Community Café) that the host research community (Bethel

Church) currently run within the local Spon End estate.

17

The café has been operational since June 2016 and was set up in order for Bethel

Church to create a local ‘space’ for people to come. The café sells good quality, low

cost food and has a ‘community cup’ scheme where people can pay for extra items

that are subsequently given away to individuals as relationships build and personal

stories are shared. Such an environment might be a good basis for provisional

empirical research as:

It is not seen as a welfare project;

It is run by volunteers from the church and the local community;

It has been able to ‘signpost’ several people to other faith and non-faith based

activities and events

This has built up several regular customers and is starting to increasingly act as a

community hub for local housing and youth workers.

A Research Approach:

The recommendation for the approach for any pilot research into the Spon End

community would take the form of both quantitative and qualitative methods. The

provisional research would be two-fold. Firstly, it would need to be designed to

ascertain a good snapshot of the current levels of social capital within the research

community (with the earlier referenced ONS data a helpful guide as to the categories

of quantitative questioning). In addition, the attitudes to the locals with regards the

host community and their Gospel distinctives would need to be assessed (the

Talking Jesus quantitative research might inform this design and approach). This

said, more in depth, thicker qualitative research would be necessary in the form of

focus groups and one to one interviews in order to gain the broader picture that

quantitative questionnaires might miss either due to a narrow question selection or

the complex dynamics that can be created when ‘known people’ are interviewed who

may struggle to resist the temptation to give the ‘right answer’ they feel is wanted by

the host organisation. This ‘design scaffold’ will be important (indeed critical) if it is to

produce some early meaningful results as it is this that will shape and keep the

research on track (Thomas, 2013: 133). Cloke and Pears advise an underpinning

ethnographic approach which (according to them) provides, ‘the most intensive

search for thick description’ (2016:7).

18

This ethnography or ‘people writing’ takes local people seriously as those from whom

a great deal can be learned and is best achieved (over and above questionnaires

and discussion groups) through being ‘immersed in the place and community

concerned’ (2016:7).

An early gap in current research could be emerging. Outside of faith based funded

initiatives (which firmly place the power and control in the faith organisation’s hands):

To what extent is it possible for a faith based community from a strong evangelical

community to embed itself meaningfully within its local urban community and be

valued, accepted and appreciated simply for the unique social added value and

Gospel initiative it brings?

Word Count: 6,533

19

Bibliography

Bacon, D, (2003), Communities, Churches and Social Capital in Northern Ireland, Ulster, Centre for Voluntary Action Studies

Baker, C and Skinner, H, (2005), Faith In Action, The Dynamic Connection Between Spiritual and Religious Capital, Manchester, William Temple Foundation

Baker, C and Miles-Watson, J, (2008), Exploring Secular Spiritual Capital: An Engagement in Religious and Secular Dialogue for a Common Future? Published International Journal of Public Theology 2 (4): 442 – 464, Manchester, William Temple Foundation

Baker, C, (2014), Spiritual Capital and Progressive Localism, Public Spirit Blog

Barna, (2015), Talking Jesus, Perceptions of Jesus, Christians and Evangelism in England, California

Beaumont, J and Baker (Eds), C, (2011), Postsecular Cities, Space, Theory and Practice, London, Continuum Books

Bebbington, D, (1989), Evangelicalism in Modern Britain, A History from the 1730s to the 1980s, Michigan, Baker Book House

Bennett, Z and Rogers, A, (2012), Report on Bible and Practical Theology Symposium, Birmingham, BIAPT

Bethel Church, Funding Application, (2014), (unpublished)

Bevans, SB and Tahaafe-Williams (Eds), K, (2011), Contextual Theology for the Twenty-First Century, Oregon, Pickwick

Bevans, SB, (2014), Models of Contextual Theology, Faith and Cultures, New York, Orbis

Bourdieu, P, (1986), ‘The Forms of Capital’, in Richardson, John G., ed., Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, New York: Greenwood.

Cloke, P, Beaumont, J and Williams, A, (2013), Working Faith, Faith-Based Organisations and Urban Social Justice, Milton Keynes, Paternoster

Cloke, P and Pears, M (Eds), (2016), Mission in Marginal Places, The Theory, Milton Keynes, Paternoster

Cloke, P and Pears, M (Eds), (2016), Mission in Marginal Places, The Praxis, Milton Keynes, Paternoster

Coleman, JS, (1988), ‘Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital’, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 94, Supplement: Organizations and Institutions: Sociological and Economic Approaches to the Analysis of Social Structure, pp. S95-S120.

Flett, J. G. (2010) The Witness of God: The Trinity, Missio Dei, Karl Barth, and the Nature of Christian Community, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

20

Foster, K, (2016), A preliminary reflective account of the ways in which a specific theological tradition (or traditions) frames, informs, and possibly constrains the Christian community which you see as the focus of your DTh project, DTh paper, Roehampton University

George, T, (1988), Theology of the Reformers, Nashville, Broadman Press

Graham, E and Lowe,S, (2009), What Makes a Good City? Public Theology and the Urban Church, London, Darton, Longman and Todd

Gauntlett, D, (2011), Making is Connecting: The Social Meaning of Creativity from DIY to Youtube to Knitting and Web 2.0, Bristol, Polity Press

Hjalmarson, L, (2015), No Home Like Place, A Christian Theology of Place, Oregon, Urban Loft

Hardy, AR, (2016), How a ministerial education programme with a very distinctive ethos has helped leaders to begin to develop a new living tradition in a church, Roehampton, DTh RGMT paper

Joseph Rowntree Foundation, (2006), Faith as Social Capital, Connecting or Dividing? Bristol, Policy Press

Morrow, G (Ed), (2001), An Appropriate Capital-isation? Questioning Social Capital, London School of Economics, Gender Institute

ONS, 2015, Measuring National Well-being - An analysis of social capital within the UK

Pattison, S, (2007), The Challenge of Practical Theology, London, Jessica Kingsley Publishers

Power, A & Willmot, H, 2007, Social Capital within the Neighbourhood, Case report 38, London, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion

Putnam, RD. (2001), Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, New York: Simon & Schuster

Rogers, A. P. (2015) Congregational Hermeneutics: How Do We Read? Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Limited

Schneider, JA, (2016), Envisioning Religiously Diverse Partnership Systems among Government, Faith Communities and FBOs, Basel, Switzerland, MDPI

Sedgwick, P (Ed), (1995), God in the City, Essays and Reflections from the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Urban Theology Group, London, Mowbray

Sobel, J, (2002), Can we Trust Social Capital? Journal or Economic Literature, p139-154

Swinton, J, (2001), Spirituality and Mental Health Care: Rediscovering a Forgotten Dimension, London, Jessica Kingsley Publications

21

Thomas, G, (2013), How to Do Your Research Project, A Guide for students in Education and Applied Social Sciences, London, Sage Pubs

www.bethelcoventry.org.uk – accessed April 2017

22

Appendix A: Spon End Coventry

23

Spon End

24