One of the key issues to clarify here is the “bigger picture” question of the relationship between faith-based organisations (FBOs) and churches (or denominations), in the light of Christian social responsibility towards homeless people. The term “the inner city church” (or churches) in this study refers to both congregations and FBOs (Christian non-government organisations). It does not refer exclusively to congregations or denominations. This is in agreement with Vidal (2001:2) and De Souza Briggs (2003:1-9) who both describe “the urban church” in these terms.
It is also necessary, however, to address the nature of the interaction between churches and FBOs, since there is a wide range of relationships. The work of Lochhead (1988) in this regard is helpful, even though his approach was developed primarily to address relationships between different religions. He distinguishes five “ideologies” of interfaith relationship: isolation, hostility, competition, partnership, and dialogue. He does explain, however, that this typology could also be used to describe the relationship between other entities: “The types have sufficient generality to be descriptive of the relations that may exist between any communities that understand themselves to be distinct” (Lochhead 1988:30). The researcher uses this typology to describe the relationships between different churches as well as between churches and FBOs within the inclusive term “the inner city church”.
By adapting Lochhead’s typology somewhat, the researcher uses “isolation” to describe an attitude of indifference or ignorance between churches and FBOs. It is quite common for churches to ignore FBOs, and vice versa, while both (in their own ways) operate in terms of Christian values and the call to Christian mission. A first scenario is that some congregations and FBOs tend to be driven by such an “ideology of isolation” in their practices.
Lochhead’s second type of relationship is hostility. An “ideology” of hostility views other role players as enemies that need to be undermined or eliminated. Wineburg, Coleman, Boddie and Cnaan (2008:23) record critical instances where some church leaders interpret social services which are rendered by entities such as government
113
departments or “secular” NGOs as “demon-like”. Such an antagonistic spirit is explained by Lochhead (1988:13) as one where community agents perceive each other as threats. He also points out that “the other community represents a force that is actively hostile to that which is most holy, most sacred.” In Chapter 4.2.1 the researcher refers to John Wesley’s view of such a “solitary religion”, which he challenged in terms of his teaching on “social holiness”.
A third scenario which sometimes characterises the relationships between inner city congregations and FBOs is an “ideology of competition.” Lochhead (1988:18) describes this as an approach where a concerned community believes itself to be better than any other agents. He illustrates this mind-set by saying that Pentecostals would regard Methodists the same way Apple regards IBM. An attitude like this in urban ministry is a worrying factor to urban specialists like Davey (2001:39). He suggests very strongly that the Christian faith is lived through presence and communities that include, strengthen and give integrity to those in the margins of society. Competition between inner city congregations or between churches and FBOs is clearly a betrayal of the spirit of the Gospel.
A fourth scenario is for urban congregations and FBOs to be guided by an “ideology of partnership”, which the researcher welcomes against isolation, hostility, and competition. Lochhead (1988:23) is also positive about such an approach, but for him it represents a type of relationship that does not discuss deeper issues of motivation or theology, focusing instead on “getting on with the urgent job on the ground”. For Lochhead this is a good (but inadequate) type of interaction, since it leaves out the essential dimension of different role players getting to know and understand each other (and the theologies that inspire or guide their practices).
For this reason, Lochhead personally favours a fifth position, which he calls an “dialogue”. This approach involves an openness to listen and learn in order to understand the other party (and the differences between the two), rather than assuming to know what motivates them, or regarding that as irrelevant in the light of the urgent challenges facing both partners in society. For Lochhead (1988) this is what love means in a Christian perspective, which means that a dialogical approach is the only way to embody Christian love in relating to other communities. In this
114
thesis, the researcher’s face-to-face approach embodies precisely this approach: entering into dialogue (and fostering further dialogue) with homeless people, but also with congregations and Christian FBOs in the inner city of Tshwane.
Mangayi (2014:53-54) observes that the Department of Christian Spirituality, Church History and Missiology at the UNISA promotes this paradigm of dialogical partnership. Students and urban practitioners are trained to participate in community transformation in an understanding that mutual partnerships and dialogical collaboration is the key to achieving the goal of addressing poverty and marginalisation. Ngcobo (2014:95) believes that a mutual dialogical partnership will lead to interaction that goes deeper to grassroots (or “pavement”) communities, to a point which even embraces “homeless, prostitutes, thieves, murderers, people of different religions and foreigners…”
Figure 3.1: Inner city church typology
Following the above sketch and reflections, the ecclesial scrutiny undertaken in this study singles out the ideology of partnership and dialogue to be fostered among inner city churches and FBOs. To do this, three case studies will inform this chapter:
Hostility Competition Dialogue Partnership Isolation
115
(1) Doxa Deo POPUP, (2) Pretoria Evangelism and Nurture (PEN)16 and TLF. These cases are local church-based initiatives and in the next section the researcher explores how they were established. His special interest is to investigate the strategies they have used to journey with homeless people in their respective struggles to achieve transformation in the inner city of Tshwane.