A National Centre for Intercultural Ministry? # 159. 14/05/2024

Out of Many, One People

Welcome. With Pentecost coming this Sunday, this is my offering of ‘dreams’ and ‘visions’. Are they indeed prophetic or simply dreams that dissipate within moments of waking up to reality? I would value voices of encouragement, correction, amplification and rejection. So please respond. And, please too, pass on to others who you think this may be of interest; even encourage them to subscribe.

A National Centre for Intercultural Ministry?

In speaking at the 2^nd Anglican Network for Intercultural Ministry in March I spoke of the need for a centre for intercultural ministry along the lines of the Rank Centre for Rural Ministry (published in blog # 154). John Bavington and others spoke of the need for this to be spelled out in detail, so herewith are some first thoughts at doing so.

The Need.

The swift emergence of the Anglican Network for Intercultural Mission (ANIC) under Bishop Tim Wambunya’s energetic and visionary leadership - able to organise the most wide-ranging gathering that we have seen for several decades, means that ANIC is now the third body in  the Church of England that together cover fairly similar terrain.

The earliest was the Committee for Minority Ethnic Anglican Concerns (CMEAC), set up as a result of the Faith in the City report of 1985, and originally the Committee for Black Anglican Concerns. As I have commented elsewhere (blog # 32) its conceptual roots were in the American civil rights movement of the sixties, and was seen as giving a ‘black’ voice in a polarised ‘black/white’ perspective; a perception that had decreasing traction for the rest of the century but has re-emerged with increased force within the past decade. Thus CMEAC’s brief tended to be ‘political’, that is increasing the numbers of minority ethnic people in positions of power in the Church of England, notably under Dr Liz Henry’s leadership. Although ‘sharing good practice’ was amongst the briefs of CMEAC very little attention was given to improving practice at a parish level.

The second body is the Archbishops’ Commission on Racial Justice (ACRJ), set up to carry out the recommendations of the ‘From Lament to Action’ Report (2021). Whilst the report made workman-like proposals about improving appointments systems and about training, thus far the most high profile outcomes of the Commission have been its work on memorials and statues and raising issues of reparations for the evils of slavery. The Report itself was fairly low-key about the realities of parish life itself – a damnably elusive area in which to seek to implement change. Meanwhile its relationship to CMEAC has not been clearly defined, at least to outsiders, and there may well have been some turf skirmishes.

Thus ANIC has entered the field in large part to fill the vacuum left by the other two organisations’ neglect of the local and parochial mission of the church. Also, below the national level are a variety of ‘racial justice’ diocesan initiatives with their own staffs.

The increasing complexity of the Church of England’s response to the country becoming ethnically diverse over the past 75 years suggests uncertainty rather than confidence over how the church should respond. Nor does it commend widespread support. Just the past few weeks we have seen the highly contentious, costly and theologically distracting report from the Oversight Group of the Fund for Healing, Repair and Justice, and the proposal by West Midlands dioceses for a cohort of ‘deconstructing whiteness’ staff. Behind these proposals are understandings of race and theology which are contested and yet which presume to represent the mind of the Church of England.

The strap-line of the Rank Centre for Rural Ministry is ‘creating confidence’. The fragmentation of our approach to race undermines confidence and creates polarisation and division. The difference of course is that whilst rural life and economy raise important and divisive issues of national policy and have their own specific issues of ‘inclusion’ and the like, they occupy nothing like as much news time and controversy as ‘race’, not least because it directly feeds into a major national concern about ‘culture wars’. But this very divisiveness argues the need for a strong central body to oversee the ground at present covered by various national and local issues.

What would such a centre be needed for?

An overview.

What is the actual state of the church’s ministry and witness in multi-ethnic England? There are certainly positive signs – so, what lies behind them: particular types of ministry, effective leaders, varied local contexts? It would be good to know more. And there are areas of concern – how prevalent is racism in various areas, how far bound by cultural traditions which are implicitly excluding? And where might we see signs of positive change that all can learn from.

A major problem here is the lack of a strong evidence based overview. The 2007 survey ‘Celebrating Diversity in the Church of England’ produced significant statistical information, but suffered from gathering material on a diocesan not parochial base, and received surprisingly little close analysis of what the statistics told us about the state of play. The problem is compounded that most comment tends to be programmatic, that is they are quickly looking for evidence for a particular approach to responding to race rather than letting the evidence speak. As an example, London diocese came out particularly well in the above survey even though it has had a very low profile in terms of its responsiveness to having been ‘the world’s most cosmopolitan city’. But it seems no one was set the task of analysing what evidence like this might have to say to the church’s policies.

However, tribute ought to be paid to the very helpful information that the Church Information Office produces on the demographic and religious constitution of each parish based on the 2021 Census.

Theological debate.

At the most basic level there is theological unity. Verses such as Genesis 1:27, Galatians 4:28 or Revelation 7:9 provide an agreed basis for our unity. But the reality of difference, relating as it does to very different histories, the ways in which power has been used and misused between different ethnic groups, their divergent experiences and outcome of living in this society, and the complex consequences of cultures and religious faiths, all inevitably provides material for diverging theological interpretations. A particular pitfall here is to assume there is some sort of normative theology that supports our commitment to both racial justice and intercultural mission, as when From Lament to Action recommended the study of Black Theology without recognising the great variety of working theologies, particularly grass-roots theologies amongst the country’s ethnic minority Christians.

Both social media and institutional networks too often limit the interaction of different theological approaches. A central body reflecting a variety of theological perspectives rather than dominated by one or two particular theologians would be important here.

Training.

I argued in speaking to the 2^nd ANIC conference that failing to train its clergy for ministry in multi-ethnic areas was a central expression of racism by neglect in the Church of England. Despite From Lament to Action rightly picking up on the issue, my impression is that there has subsequently been remarkably little impact on the thin fare that theological colleges offer. There needs to be a compulsory module for all theological colleges along the lines of ‘Ministry in Multi-Ethnic England’. Is it anyone’s job to pick that up? Again, a central institution would have the authority to both devise a fairly basic course, and to train and authorise a cadre of leaders to teach it.

Inevitably there are limits to how much can be taught in what are now often disturbingly flimsy and time-limited training courses. Often it is only the first hand encounter in depth with minority ethnic communities that raises more profound questions (though placements during training provide a useful but still insufficient experience). Therefore offering introductory and locally orientated training for those doing curacies, or on becoming incumbents is important. Equally important is the continuing provision of ad hoc courses responding to particular issues, or to questions being thrown up at the time.

Disseminating Resources.

The fragmentation of the church’s response both at national and diocesan level means a lack of co-ordination (as over training material above). It also means that much good work is being done locally which never gets disseminated more widely. A good example is the ‘Two-way Street: Steps to Intercultural Church and Mission’ four session course produced by Harvey Kwiyani and Nigel Rooms for Birmingham diocese. I heard of this by chance at the ANIC conference. Why is no one publicising it widely across the whole Church of England? My own blog has published both a teaching/home group course, and a parish audit, which is available for anyone, and hopefully will appear in a future Grove booklet.

More fundamentally, what communication channels are there to publicise such resources? A central body could provide a simple channel to inform every parish in the country of the sort of materials (also including books, meetings and conferences) that they might find useful. The Church of England can not force its clergy to drink in helpful material for multi-ethnic ministry; it can lead them to sources they may choose to pick upon as they begin to realise they really do have a need.

More informally ‘sharing good practice’ can simply mean telling stories. At the ANIC conference it was both helpful to hear of initiatives in the Leicester diocese, and glimpses of other very impressive developments. Good stories need circulating. A central body could do this. Similarly ANIC is now setting up regional bodies to facilitate local contacts and further mutual support, encouragement and learning between colleagues.

Pathways.

The Church of England has pathways for those who believe themselves called to rural ministry. It sets aside those who it sees as having particular potential for academic or teaching ministry. But as regards those with a vision for cross-cultural ministry and mission it is still a random process that such round pegs may happen to land up in the small number of round pegs - strongly multi-cultural parishes able to offer curacies. The church’s financial hardships mean that fewer curacies are offered in under-resourced, smaller multi-ethnic areas; whilst the increased age and settled life-style of ordinands mean that there are fewer clergy willing to serve in more deprived communities. My impression is that it is increasingly hard to find inter-culturally experienced incumbents for ethnically diverse communities. A resource centre with a national brief would have the capacity to steer motivated ordinands into ethically diverse curacies and on into incumbencies. The importance of context for ministry is widely and rightly recognised. How important then that we identify, train and place clergy in intercultural contexts for which they feel motivated and have been prepared.

Indeed, we need to go a level deeper and set ourselves to encourage and call people to have a mission minded orientation to all the ethnic groups in our midst. Centrally we need to be energising people to see that the Church of England is serious about bringing the good news of Jesus to every person living in England, regardless of their background – our lack of publicly recognised evangelistic seriousness is a significant factor in people, notably those from Anglican backgrounds in other parts of the world, not pitching in their lot with the Church of England, but instead being enthused by the missionary vision of diaspora churches. A central body could be both a clearing house for disseminating what is already happening (for example an Anglican Turkish congregation here in North London) and identifying groups where as yet the church is having very little impact, such as Somalis.

Central Issues.

This is the area at which the Church has been strongest. As has been noted, From Lament to Action made important proposals about seeking to ensure potential minority ethnic minority candidates for posts are not missed out. Memorials which reflect past racist assumptions do need scrutiny and at times removal, and the nature of our past collusion in enslavement needs repentance and appropriate restitution, though the issues may be more complex than has been recognised until recently.

However it is important that issues are not simply shaped by lobbying without a more dispassionate and wider look at realities. I have argued elsewhere that the expensive failure of the Simon of Cyrene Theological Institute was the consequence of agreeing to

Inadequately informed lobbying from the Association of Black Clergy. More widely the whole history of the Church’s involvement in a multi-ethnic society – more robust than is often recognised, is nonetheless a succession of disparate and often diverging moments, rather than a continuing narrative. The consequence is that we lack ‘institutional memory’. The past simply passes, rather than becoming a resource for learning, lamentation and celebration. A central body would give much needed continuity.

Relating to minority ethnic and diasporic churches.

Anglicans form only a minority (and a declining one) of the Christian population in multi-ethnic communities. Whilst our established status easily blinds us to our weakness, nonetheless it gives us authority to play an important role in consolidating unity amongst the dizzying variety and complexity of church life in our urban areas. There is an important need to develop relationships, to learn from their spirituality and evangelistic effectiveness, to be generous in sharing resources (not least in training) and to be seeking to develop a shared Christian voice to our whole society. At present no Church of England organisation seems to be responsible for this, nor does it appear much in central planning. A central body could have an important role in facilitating relationships with diasporic and national bodies, which is essential if the not negligible human resources of all the churches in England are to have the impact on our society that we could have and ought to have.

‘First thoughts’.

This blog has had the luxury of being entirely speculative, over against the hard work of those who are actually working in organisations. But it is intended to be visionary and provocative. I do believe there is a case for a much more unified, thorough and wide-ranging approach than is the case with our present fragmentation. I believe also that such co-ordination would avoid duplication, be cost-cutting, and would release people and resources for the central and basic ministry of building up the church at its local, parochial bases.