Church-Based Welfare Agency and Public Religion
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Olav Helge Angell CHURCH-BASED WELFARE AGENCY AND PUBLIC RELIGION Abstract The purpose of the article is to study how a church-based welfare agent (Kirkens Bymisjon, the Church City Mission, in Drammen) can act as a value guardian in social action and public dis- course, how this agency is received in the local community and how this agency is significant in a sociological perspective. The material presented in this article derives from the Norwegian case study in a European research project (Welfare and Religion in a European Perspective), carried out in a middle-sized town, Drammen. Findings show that the local majority church, the Church of Norway in Drammen, including church-based voluntary agents, is expected by the local public authorities to participate in the public welfare debate issues. The local church does not live up to expectations, mainly with the exception of the case organisation studied here. It is perceived to act as a value guardian in practical social work and in the public discourse. Values supported are the human dignity of everybody and the collective solidarity of the welfare state. It is reasonable to explain the organisation’s role in the public sphere in connection with the general appreciation of the practical social work it performs. Key words: religion, church, welfare, public, values, social work, moral agency, voluntary organ- isation Introduction In the Nordic value study on «folk churches and religious pluralism» (Gustafsson and Pettersson 2000) a majority both in Norway and in the other Nordic countries grant a high degree of legitimacy to church-based social welfare work, with reference to the majority churches, the Lutheran churches, in each country (Gustafsson 2000; cf. Sund- back 2000). The support for this kind of work is significantly higher than for work more directly related to attention to religious functions. It has been claimed that in late modern society the primary welfare function of the church is related to its contribution to identity and meaning (Bäckström 2001), what may be called a symbolic function. The outcome of the Nordic value study may be interpreted in a way that modifies such a claim. 179 Nordic Journal of Religion and Society 20:2 Research in the Nordic countries on the specific roles of faith-based or church- based voluntary organisations and their role in the welfare field has increased signifi- cantly during the past ten to fifteen years, especially in Finland, Norway and Sweden. The studies concern the contemporary role of parishes and diaconal organisations as providers of social work or welfare services in the welfare state (Angell 1994; Angell and Wyller 2006; Beckman et al. 2006; Bäckström 2001; Engel 2006; Jeppsson Grass- man 2001; Sagatun 1998; Svendal 1998; Yeung 2006), including more historically ori- ented studies (Hvinden and Pettersen 2001; Leis 2004; Lorentzen 1994). Some studies focus more on interorganisational relationships than the particular (church-based) agencies involved (Sagatun 1998) and emphasise organisations working in the field of relief and development aid (Schjørring 2001; Tønnessen 2007). Several studies address what I term the value guardian role of the church-based agents (Angell and Wyller 2006; Beckman et al. 2006; Leis 2004; Lorentzen 1994; Yeung 2006) but less explicitly than this article does. In addressing the value guardian role this article includes both social action and participation in the public welfare debate. The article is primarily a case study of a local Norwegian voluntary welfare organ- isation called Kirkens Bymisjon, the Church City Mission (CCM)1. The purpose of the article is to focus on how a church-based welfare agent can act as a «value guardian» in social action and public discourse. The concept of value guardian refers to US pro- fessor of social welfare Ralph Kramer’s analysis of the functions of voluntary organi- sations in the welfare state (Kramer 1981). Kramer specifies four main types of organ- isational roles of voluntary agencies in the welfare state, the vanguard role, the improver or advocate role, the service provider role and the value guardian role. The vanguard is the pioneer, the innovator; the improver or advocate is the critic or watch- dog vis à vis the state and its services. In this article special attention will be paid to the value guardian role, by which «a voluntary agency (among other things) is expected to promote citizen participation, to develop leadership, and to protect the special interests of social, religious, cultural and other minority groups» (Kramer 1981:9). We may take this definition as a guideline without restricting the role the way Kramer does. The value guardian role is thus associated with the role of the «critical voice» (cf. Lund- ström and Wijkström 1995). Participation in the public discourse refers to how the voice of the church-based agents is made visible in the local media. The church as an institution is by definition a guardian of (religious) values. The focus of this article is how a church-based voluntary welfare organisation takes on a value guardian role, and how this agency is received in the local community, especially by the public sector. A church-based welfare agency may be seen as a form of religious practice and in theological terms closely connected to the concept of diaconia (cf. Heitink 1999; Tønnessen 2005). Methods The material presented derives from the Norwegian case study in the European research project Welfare and religion in a European perspective - A comparative study 180 Olav Helge Angell Church-based welfare agency and public religion of the role of the majority churches as welfare providers within the social economy (WREP) (see Bäckström 2003). The case study was carried out in the town of Dram- men, a middle-sized town south-west of the capital, Oslo. Data were collected on the welfare agency of church-based agents, on interactions and relationships between public authorities and the local majority church, the Church of Norway,2 in matters of welfare agency, including each party’s perception of and attitude to the other in its role as welfare agent. Data were collected in 2004–2005 and consisted of interviews and document analysis. We interviewed representatives of the local church (clergy at parish and deanery level, parish deacons, parish council leaders and leading administrative staff at the deanery level and representatives of other church-based welfare organisa- tions), the public authorities (managers at different levels in the municipality and members of the municipal council) and the political editor of the local newspaper, Drammens Tidende.3 Data were also collected from the newspaper, partly from a web source, the electronic archive for the period 2001 – 2005, partly from the paper edition, mainly for the period the data collection took place. Data include altogether 27 inter- views of which 14 were with local public authorities and 12 with church-related repre- sentatives. Theoretical perspectives In the analysis of the empirical data I will draw mainly on welfare theory and ethical theory. Modernity is characterised by individualisation. Individualisation as a cultural phenomenon is associated with the idea that each individual human being is responsi- ble for his/her own life choices, for his/her life situation. The Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor’s analysis of the «malaise of modernity» or «the ethics of authenticity» (Taylor 1991) is based on the premise that in modern societies, authorised, taken for granted, shared sets of norms and values are by and large missing. According to Taylor, there is a demand put on the individual to fulfil oneself, based on the moral ideal of being true to oneself, of authenticity. This moral ideal of constructing one’s own per- sonal identity cannot be conducted by the individual in isolation, as the making and sustaining of our identity (…) remain dialogical throughout our lives», according to Taylor (Taylor 1991:35). This line of reasoning resembles Anthony Giddens’ theory on identity formation in modernity as a reflexive process (Giddens 1991). On the one hand, individual responsibility has freedom as its basis. On the other hand, freedom is not for everyone to enjoy (Bauman 2001). From a structural point of view, there are those who do not command sufficient resources to choose and live their lives as they would like. Their life situation should not be seen as a result of personal choices only, when they are displaced to a position on the margins of society. When every individual basically is thought to be responsible for his/her life, s/he is the one to blame in case of failure (Beck and Hviid Nielsen 1997) and to take the consequences thereof. Consequently, there is a tension between the ideal of collective solidarity built into the welfare state and the ideology of individualism. 181 Nordic Journal of Religion and Society 20:2 This tension may be mitigated through the concept of responsibility as a basic polit- ical value particularly associated with the Christian democratic language in the Euro- pean political context (Stjernø 2005:249). Responsibility includes both individualism in the sense used above and its modification, meaning that it is the individual’s obliga- tion to help those in need. Combined with a social democratic perspective, this obliga- tion may well be perceived as a collective responsibility, giving priority to public arrangements, or alternatively to voluntary organisations in co-operation with the public sector. Social arrangements and social work with the aim of helping those in need repre- sents moral work. Those in need are themselves imbued with moral value and what is done in response to their situation and the way they are treated as users are «anchored in a moral context» (Hasenfeld 1992:5). For example, visiting a welfare office implies in many cases stigmatization and conveys a statement of negative social worth by observers – and even by the visitors themselves.