Introduction

This chapter is framed by the idea of ‘blurred encounters’, particularly the encounters between faith groups, government, academia and other partners in the third sector. These encounters have recently increased in scope and frequency due to current government policy aimed at increasing the role played by the third sector (including faith groups) in key policy areas such as social cohesion, local democracy and public service provision (for example, LGA, 2002; PIU, 2002; Home Office, 2004).

The following discussion first describes the phenomenon of blurred encounters. This provides a basis for the subsequent identification and exploration of different levels of miscommunication that can occur in situations of blurred encounters between faith- and nonfaith- based sectors. It is shown that that these miscommunications stem as much from attempts to use shared language and concepts as the use of different ones. This is because faith and non-faith sectors have different understandings and interpretations of key motifs used within government policy, a problem exacerbated by the fact that government interpretations based on secular/modernist assumptions of the importance of neutrality and bureaucratic accountability are usually assumed to be the default ones. These observations stem from qualitative research undertaken by the author and colleagues at the William Temple Foundation (WTF), involving fieldwork with nine church-based congregations and initiatives in three rapidly regenerating areas of Manchester in the period from 2002 to 2005 (William Temple Foundation, 2003; Baker and Skinner, 2005, 2006).

The chapter concludes with, first, the offer of a strategy for addressing this problematic of miscommunication between language and values through a common discourse based on different types of social capital and, second, some comments about what can be defined as ‘religious literacy’ and whether there is a further need for other bridging concepts or metaphors, apart from ‘capital’, within public political discourse.

Blurred encounters – good or bad?

Blurred relationships between two individuals or institutions might be interpreted positively as signifying an apparent consensus, a pleasing overlap of ethos, philosophies and methods of working. The parties may enjoy being part of a partnership or network from which they have been previously excluded, as in the case of a faith-based organisation attending a strategic policy meeting previously reserved for secular bodies.