Written by: John Woodward on December 15, 2013

First Impressions

The London Advance for the George Fox Theological Seminary Doctoral Program (September 2013) introduced me to two wonderful places of safety and joy.  The first was found on Sunday afternoon, when my introverted nature draw me away from my cohort to fulfill my passion as a world traveler: to get closer to everyday life of ordinary people in London. Being alone also provided me a few minutes of quiet reflection, to process this tsunami of ideas, insights, new friendships and instructions from this week in London.  Leaving my group at the National Gallery, I ventured down to the Thames to find a riverfront festival in full swing, complete with food stands, human statues, jugglers, contortionist and—best of all—lots of children and families.

One particular group of children playing in a storm of bubbles caught my attention. The children frolicked together attempting to grab these shimmer and allusive objects as they floated by.  The children’s laughter and smiles were contagious.  Here children seemed safe to laugh and play.  This was my first safe place in London.

This one moment seemed to capture perfectly the entire London Advanced for me. Like those colorful bubbles, the week long Face-to-Face had swirled and flashed before me with a vast array of captivating of ideas, insights, challenges, people and places.  Getting a handle on the flood of intellectual, sensory and emotional information was like trying to grab a bubble.  During this week long feast in this exuberant learning environment I had met business leaders and church leaders—from a pastor in small local parish church to a vicar in grand Cathedral; I enjoyed English Pub food as well Indian and Japanese fare; I visited the heights of the financial world and strolled through local parks and neighborhoods; I had devotions in a small room with my cohort and worshipped in Westminster Abbey; and I even learned how to tweet and blog.

I was most awed and inspired by meeting and being taught by dynamic church leaders.  Here were cutting-edge practitioners making real contributions to both church and society pouring their wisdom into our small group.  Also, I witnessed examples of servant leadership from the George Fox Staff whose encouragement continually brought peace of mind and allowed space for joyful exploration.

Our LGP4 Cohort came together from literally all over the world, a bright display of God’s very best living brilliant and vibrant lives in service to Christ. Here was a microcosm of the church in the world today. Here were pastors, teachers, missionaries and servants, gather for the purposed of trying take hold of this allusive thing we call faith or Christianity or God.  What was most obvious about these newfound friends was their passion.  Their sacrifice of time, money and effort, to step away from work and family, all for the simple hope of bettering their service.  Like these children on the Thames, an instantaneous unity and fellowship was found due a shared center and sacrifice (or maybe from the common feeling of “OMG—what have we gotten ourselves into?”).  There was immediately a shared “meaning and value” that provided cohesion to such a diverse group.1 Here in this newly formed LGP4 was found a place of joy and fellowship; my second safe place in London.  Here we had permission to question, inquire and even to disagree. Having stepped out of our traditions and social structures, away from our peers and cultures, we could freely give our full attention to something (or someone) greater than ourselves. For a moment, we could be who we are.  We came from many nations, cultures, church backgrounds, theologies, educational and social situations, to find common ground in seeking the voice and direction of God that we might better serve Him.  Here, we found fellow travelers with a common focus.  That common focus created a safe place where tremendous fellowship and playfulness was experienced.

New Knowledge

Leadership was a central theme during the Advance.  For years, leadership was something I did, not something I thought about.  The speakers and the reading on leadership were hugely important to my understanding of both my role and style of leadership; it has also helped me to better understand issues and challenges that I face in ministry.  The Saturday Global Leadership Perspective Conference was truly eye opening. MaryKate Morse2 developed the concept of embodied leadership that works closer to my character and concerns.  She challenged us to be mindful of what our bodies tell others, realizing that body language speaks volumes about our attitudes toward the other and projects our concepts of leadership and ourselves.  Remembering that Jesus embodies us provides important insight about what our actions also might say about our Savior.  Her leadership perspective was about leading up-close and personal, through influence and example rather than power.  Thereby, “self-leading” then becomes essential to develop effective leadership.

Martyn Percy’s call for “wise leadership” that is “occupied with God,” rooted in listening3 resonated strongly with me and dovetailed beautifully with Morse’s insights. David Ford is also concerned with the concept of wisdom, relating it to theology, suggesting that the Christians should “beware of any pursuit of theological information and knowledge that is not somehow in the service of wisdom.”4  This renewed focus on wisdom—that is a God informed understanding—of leadership and learning is encouraging. This idea of wise leadership provides a radically different way forward for our modern, CEO style Christian leaders who rely on charisma or power.  One reason for my reluctance to read leadership books has been their focus on self-motivation, control and power. How refreshing it was to hear someone espousing a deeper spiritual foundation and focus, for prayer and contemplation to seek God’s direction and voice for authentic leadership.  A common theme among all the speakers was the need to know who you are, where you stand with Christ, and how much of your life is influenced and reflective of God.

The most influential lessons on leadership came from the examples of the GFES staff who exhibited servant and empowering leadership. I often heard the staff speak words of encouragement and affirmation to the cohort.  It became clear over the week that this program and its leadership paradigm was vastly different from what I’ve experienced in the academic world and even in the church.  The LGP program is not about competition or getting ahead.  Rather this program is designed to create an atmosphere of cooperation and mutual support. This concept is well described in Nohria and Khurana as “leading for innovation” that creates a situation “which people want to belong – one in which individuals are affirmed in their identity (unleashing their ‘slices of genius,’ or talents) and are able to be a part of and contribute to something larger than themselves (harnessing the diverse slices of genius to develop innovative solutions for a collective purpose).”5  It is leadership designed to empower and motivate others to innovate, use their talents and contribute their very best. And motivated we were!

Practices and Application 

I had no idea how many of the experiences at the Advanced would affect my work and my life. Time and again I found myself writing notes during talks about the issues I was facing on a regular basis.  I work in a small organization that most would call dysfunctional.  Steve Chalke’s was extremely helpful for understanding the major issues within our organization.  His comment that “the best founder is a dead founder” was both humorous and truthful, as he explained founders are visionaries, not administrators.  When founders try to administer, it usual creates problems.  I have struggle since entering into my organization to find ways to bring some sense of order and direction to a vast array of ministries that our founder has (and continues) to create. Chalke’s personal confession about not being an administrator was highly encouraging, along with his challenge for visionary leaders to let go and enjoy seeing others doing the work well.

Our visit with Jeremy Crossley—a man of gentle spirit and humor—was captivating and extremely encouraging.

Here was a pastor who had entered into a completely ministry new in a completely new world and culture—the world big business.  He was essentially a pioneering missionary to the London financial district and had to learn the language and culture of his flock and find ways of meeting people where they were.  He reminded us that a pastor should never assume he knows the world of those he minister to and must be humble enough to learn.  Even more, a pastor must become a part of their world. Instead of expecting them to come over to his side before he engaged them, Crossley ventured out into their every day world.  He dealt effectively with bridging the gap “between the mission and everyday practice” that haunts so many church leaders.6  Through the years, Crossley has developed a tremendous understanding about the lives and struggles of those who are now his flock, even adjusting the church schedule to fit their complicated lives.  Here is a powerful example of what it means to follow Christ by entering into the world of those needing to hear the Gospel and meeting them at the place they call home.

Visual Ethnography

Which brings us back to the children on the Thames gleefully playing with the bubbles. This photo caused me to reflect more closely on what I was observing and what it told me about London.  What I first found captivating in this group was the joy and playfulness of these children.  They laughed and squalled, jumped and played so unpretentiously. They found this a safe place to play. I was next captivated by the ethnic mix of these children.  Some looked European, others Middle Eastern and others Indian.  Some wore colorful clothing associated with their national cultures, while others dressed in typical European fashion.  So who were these children and where did they come from?  Was this a typical display of the ethnic and cultural make up of Londoners?  And was this the normal experience for children in London to come together from so many cultures and nationalities to joyfully play together?

Though these questions cannot be answered fully, let me venture some observations from this moment and from my wider experiences in walking around London.  First, if you pull back from the close up of these children, you see their guardians or parents.  The ethnic make-up becomes clearer as many of the parents are also in their national dress. Listening to their conversations, the different languages spoken gave further hints of their backgrounds. What was immediately evident was that the interactions of the children were not copied by the parents and family members. These guardians stood in small clusters, focused on the children—most were taking pictures—while ignoring those on their left and their right.  Is this outer circle more representative of life in London?  Was this festival on the Thames than a special occasion, a safe place for at least children to play together who don’t normally play together? What I was witnessing was what Pink describes as the “new political and economic context that economic migrants, refugees and asylum seekers find themselves in” which makes modern ethnographic studies complicated.7 The huge influx of immigrants into London over the last fifty years who have settled into culturally homogeneous neighborhoods was well represented in this group. But to capture ethnographically these immigrant parents who were learning to live and adjust, survive and negotiate in two worlds at once while hoping the best for their children was a monumental challenge; let alone trying to capture their children who are seeking to make their way between old and new cultures, between parents wishes and their new reality.

I became aware of these “ethnic neighborhoods”  one evening as I strolled away from our hotel.  Walking, according to Pink, is a specially useful ethnographic method offering “rich medium for sensory ethnographic representation” 8  Our hotel was located in a very affluent and well-groomed neighborhood of row houses.  Most of those I passed on the streets near our hotel were white, well-dressed individuals in the latest Western fashions.   Our neighborhood had mostly traditional English pubs and restaurants.  The only exception was an occasional small store run by non-Europeans.  This particular evening I strolled several blocks beyond Paddington Station. When I turned the corner, I suddenly found myself in a totally different world. What was immediately obvious was the signage everywhere was in both English and Arabic.  As I began to look around at the people and their dress, I found myself surrounded mostly by Middle Easterners: women in headscarves, men in Arabic thawb, and in front of every coffee shop and small stores were people enjoying hookah pipes.  There were also a number of stores that sold groceries and items that catered to a Middle Eastern cliental.

All of a sudden, I was very much the minority. It because evident that I was in a different culture when I entered a McDonald’s.  The girl behind the counter was dressed in a headscarf and floor length dress and spoke English with a strong accent, which combined with my American accent resulted in my receiving two McFlurries instead of the one I ordered.  I sat for a short while observing several older men dressed in suit jackets, who had neither food nor drinks at their table but seem to have made this their personal meeting place to engage in conversation, business or fellowship.  Realized I was the only non-Middle Easterner in the McDonald’s,  I felt miles away from London at this moment.

The children involved in joyful interaction on the Thames were most likely from similar culturally segregated neighborhoods, yet had found a safe place to interact without any inhibitions.  Even their parents seem to revel in this moment of joyful play, even capturing it with pictures.  Pink asks us to consider the “idea of human imagination and dreams as a site of ethnographic fieldwork.”9  I had to wonder if these adults here imagined this scene as a vision for the future for their children.  Was there a dream that their children would find a place in Britain where their ethnic or culture differences didn’t matter, where a common focus might bring people joyfully together? Or, would these parents see their neighborhoods as the only real safe place for their children?  Would these children simply go back at the end of this festive day to their neighborhoods, where they would not meet or engage with others from India, or the Middle East, or Africa, or even England for days or months?  As we ponder Elliott’s definition of society as “an indispensable medium for the production of social relations, emphasizing the benefits of interpersonal relationships and the potential gains from intercultural communication,”10 I had to ask what kind of social or interpersonal relations would these children ever be able to experience in Modern London, and what amount of intercultural communication was there now or in the future?  Even though these children lived in the same country and maybe shared the same citizenship, would all these children grow up in their parent’s culture, segregated from others, speaking some other language than English as their first language, and only rarely rubbing shoulders those outside their group?

For me, the whole question of the in segregation of London’s neighborhoods became a big question. How did is come about that there is are Indian, Polish, Middle Eastern and African neighborhoods?  And how much daily interaction did the children from these different neighborhoods really have?  And what did the parents feel about the parents across the circle and what were their ultimately dreams for their children?

I have been mostly honest as about what I saw in my limited time in London, fulfilling most of Pink’s instructions to “offer a vision of ethnographers’ experiences of reality that is as loyal as possible to the context, negotiations and intersubjectivities through which knowledge was produced.”11 That is, except for my subjectivities. As I reflected again on the first photo, it struck me like a load of bricks that my reason for choosing the picture was obvious.  My ministry is working with children.  I engage the world from the viewpoint of children.  How parents and society treat children and how children either suffer or thrive are for me is the gage of how a society is doing. It is no wonder that I would be drawn to these lively and joyful children at play. This brought new appreciation for Pink’s concern for a “reflexive approach” to visual ethnography.12  I did bring myself into the observation. Further, I had to admit that being in London I was a foreigner also informed my choices in what I observed.  No wonder my focus would be the lives of immigrants (read foreigners) adjusting to their new culture (like me).  These personal concerns explain my focus on questions about the hardships (prejudices, biases, discriminations) that especially immigrant parents suffer and how it effected the children.  I now see that I was just as much a part of what I was studying.

Sadly, our time in London was too short and our contacts with the children and their parents too limited to even begin to answer these questions.  But these questions about London will forever haunt me and cause me to pray for the children of London, that as they grow to be adults, they might create safe places where they can experience the same joy in engaging with others of diverse backgrounds as they once did as children along the Thames one sunny day.

____________________

About the Author

John Woodward

Associate Director of For God's Children International. Member of George Fox Evangelical Seminary's LGP4.

• Facebook
• Twitter