The Churches and Public partnerships – is it worth it?

“What’s the point?” “A waste of time and money”. “That’s what we elect people for”. “Church and politics don’t mix”.

All these reasons were given by church members to Government’s attempts to ensure that the Faith communities engage, along with the other sectors, in the work of developing work that affects the quality of life in each locality.

Having acted for four years as the Faith representative on a Strategic Partnership, of which in the last year I was the Chair, there has been time to reflect on whether this is the place for the churches to be.

The commonest partnerships in England, Strategic Partnerships and the groups they have spawned, themselves vary hugely in size and composition, and have changed considerably in the few years since they were set up. Some have more than one Faith representative, and some have none. How a member of any one church can represent all churches, and also other Faith communities, will always be contentious, though other sectors face the same difficulties.

We are also in a period when respect does not come with any given role but is by and large earned by delivering the goods, in the church as elsewhere. In spite of positive central Government agenda, and a thawing towards the Faith communities at local level, in particular because of the social impact they can have in touching groups that include ethnic minorities and homeless people, it is frequently hard to see what can possibly be delivered by Faith communities at a strategic level where considerable resources and people with specific skills are needed. It is also hard to see what the other partners, especially the local authorities, can offer local Faith communities that differs from what they offer any voluntary body of local residents who may have local premises.

There is also a question on whether Faith congregations should try through these Partnerships to influence local decisions, and whether it is a sensible deployment of staff, most of whom are ministers. People of faith, after all, have the opportunities to express themselves through the elected councillors, or by standing for election themselves, or by seeking work in local government. There is also the question of whether the faith communities have anything specific to bring.

What was achieved? My town, Swindon, once a thriving railway town, is not poor. It has low unemployment and is surrounded by successful firms. Like a mint with a whole in it, it had a poor, under-populated town centre, no university, high rates of teenage pregnancy in its moderately deprived estates, a central library that was housed in a temporary cabin for twenty years, and a reputation of being in media eyes at least something of a joke. It also had, what was rarely commented on, an excellent 20th century art collection, a successful arts centre, a railway museum, the overflow collection from the Science Museum, and numerous festivals known at national level.

My own experience was that the first two years on the Partnership seemed to achieve nothing tangible. It was often hard to justify giving the time when church congregations saw no real impact, and hard too to claim to be a Faith representative when people from the other Faiths saw the whole role as irrelevant.

The Partnership may have achieved something. There were numerous strategies, which took much time to prepare but do seem to bear fruit. However, some of them worked. Local campaigners made sure that some of the Climate Change Action Plan is put into force. The Local Area Agreements, the way the government wants public money to be spent locally, and accounted for, is functioning. These would have happened anyway, but as Faith representative, there was a chance to create input others could not, by talking of the wider ethical issues. It was a licence to speak.

However, in the last few years it has become increasingly possible for elected councillors, and to some extent officers, to express the faith which many have and on which they their base their work and conduct. While it was useful having someone to speak directly on faith issues, it may have been a privilege that had a certain role at a certain time.

Was it worth the time? Probably, not so much for the achievements as for the contacts. It was a highly privileged role that enabled communications to happen. It was a chance to meet many people, some committed Christians, others sympathetic, among them officers of the council, elected members, members of the police, health, education, social and other services, together with many voluntary sector people, who were honestly trying to live out their commitment in their work lives, for the benefit of their neighbour. The cynicism that they were often subject to was unfair. A more just approach might be to honour people for what they achieve, pray that they will use their responsibilities wisely, and that they will be able to work with others well.

Should the church have been at the table? There are drawbacks and temptations. The role can give an illusion of power, and there is always the danger that this will corrode judgement. And as churches we often give the impression we are capable of delivering opinions and staffing where this is not going to happen.

We often state our base in terms of the numbers of weekly church-goers. Some eight to ten per cent of the population has a regular faith practice. That does not translate into large numbers of people we can call on to respond. Staff in the sector ministries can feel crushed between the desire to impress the secular partners and persuade their denominational employers that their job is worthwhile, while aware that only a small proportion of church-goers will involve themselves in the work the other partners are hoping for.

Churches also need to consider the right person for the role. A Faith role does not need to be held by someone ordained or employed by the churches. The role can benefit from someone who can bring the skills of their professional life, together with a practical knowledge of what the church can achieve. They need to have access to systems of communications and the right to speak for the churches, especially as they will meet uncertainty on whether the role is considered worthwhile by the congregations. The actual work involved long hours of committee-work and mounds of paper, and the results can take years to appear.

What will make roles like this may well be the extent to which internal communications between the churches are good, including with the independent churches, the extent of support the representative can obtain within the churches, and relations with the other sectors; and most of all delivering what we promise, particularly in what the churches are best at, grass-roots social care for those on the fringes of society. Bringing this to the awareness of the wider ‘powers that be’ may be the most important part of the role. We also need to be sure we can report back to the churches.

The role was in this case a rare and valued experience, which allowed me to work with interesting, committed and resourced people. It was most valuable for the contacts rather than any achievement.

I came away convinced that more church people should be encouraged to stand for election as councillors, and that there was a real need to engage more with the democratic process. However, should theses roles make it possible to strengthen those who work for the kingdom in their paid profession, and to stimulate the churches to remember that public life is an honourable calling, and one to engage with in service and humility, these roles, while they last, have their benefit. It may be that it is at the table as well as the street campaigning that change happens, and if others see us as trustworthy and bringing a different perspective, it is worth the work.

Rosemary Power recently completed a term as Faith representative and latterly Chair of Swindon Strategic Partnership.