Diasporic Churches and Mission in Britain - 2: Responses. # 93. 18/10/2022
Out on Many, One People
Welcome to a continuation of last week’s blog. Comment, criticise, commend.
Diasporic Churches and Mission in Britain – 2: Responses
Last week’s Blog was the first part of a response to Global Connections invitation printed below, seeking to set out the challenge of building ‘missional bridges’ between long-established churches and ‘diaspora Christian communities’. This week is about such bridges might be built or strengthened.
‘We will launch a new forum in January that will focus on issues of mission in the context of world Christianity in the UK. With this forum, we will seek to build missional bridges with diaspora Christian communities in the country for the sake of God's mission here. As we prepare to launch the new forum, we would like to hear from you if you have any ideas on how best we can engage the Christian diaspora.’ (‘Global Connections’ bulletin, Sept 2022).
What creates foundations for missional bridges?
The points made last week under ‘what are we looking for’ spelled out the needed motivation for churches, and especially church leaders, to take time in pressed diaries to build links with churches that are different in ethnicity, and quite possibly also spirituality and theology. What is it that helps make the foundations of missional bridges.
a) Listening to each others’ stories.
I can think of two occasions when being part of an inter-denominational, inter-cultural ministers group was sparked into life when we recognised the similarities in our different stories: coming from a non-religious background and being impacted by a Christian youth group, or even coming to faith from drug-abusing rebellion. Granberg-Michaelson writes: ‘The fresh pathways of this pilgrimage won’t begin with a fixation on points of theological difference, but with a fascination about the development of one another’s spiritual journey. More attention will be placed on faith formation than on doctrinal formation’ (p 72). Attending to theological difference is, I believe, an important stage in a mature and mutually respectful missional relationship, rather than one than never moves beyond the rhetoric of ‘all one in Christ’, nonetheless it is secondary to the receptive, thankful and joyful listening to each other’s testimonies. The theological significance of testimony has been boosted by such works as Richard Bauckham’s ‘Jesus and the Eyewitnesses’, and his emphasis on the gospels’ witness to ‘the Jesus of testimony’; such a theologically grounded experiential stress is also found in David Ford’s ‘The Gospel of John – a Theological commentary’.
b) Seeking the good of all.
When churches are in survival mode it is hard for them to obey Paul’s injunction: ‘Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others’ (Phil 2:4). But seriousness about our mission demands a commitment of time, energy and prayer to supporting and encouraging the life of other churches with very different backgrounds and approaches to our own. Only then will our own inner lives be invigorated by the blessing we receive from others; only then will society be drawn to giving us serious attention through the impact of ethnic diversity in unity; only then will the next generation be given the resources to find their way amidst increasing moral and intellectual complexity. Hearing each others’ stories warms our hearts, but there needs to be a sturdy act of the will to subsume the interests of my church to the greater good of united witness, not least in committing time to each other.
c) Working to a common theology.
Being of one heart and mind is not easy, takes time, and is never completely achieved as new challenges ever confront the churches. Wesley Granberg-Michaelson writes: ‘A climate of mutuality and ecclesiological hospitality needs to be created so a genuine theological dialogue and spiritual solidarity can begin to take root’ (p 125). Dismissing the theology of one stream as ‘dead’ or the other stream as ‘irrational’ will not take us forward. Respectful mutuality, the willingness to be surprised, and the humility to change our minds are necessary if the manifold richness of world Christianity now found in close proximity across the great world cities, is to lead to growing unity not only in fellowship but in understanding.
What can be done?
Given the conviction that stronger links and lived out expressions of ethnic unity in faith are central to the church’s mission in this country (and throughout the world, where the multi-ethnic cities of the West provide significant laboratories for developing close inter-ethnic unity) what then can actually be done?
What follows are a number of suggestions:
1. In most multi-ethnic areas there are ministers’ meetings of some sort which bring together leaders from a range of churches and ethnicities firstly in prayer, and also possibly in arranging activities of witness or service to the community. These are vital and constructive first steps in building bridges of trust, faith and potentially of mission between ‘historic’ and ‘diasporic’ churches. I have found praying across cultures both invigorating to my own faith and prayer life, enabling joyful fellowship, and also specific opportunities to witness and serve together.
One limitation can be the contrasting needs of full-time ministers preferring day-time meetings opposed to ministers with ‘secular’ jobs usually requiring evening meetings. Also for reasons noted above many leaders of the numerous independent churches that proliferate in areas such as Tottenham see little in such meetings that will be to their benefit. Further, irregular attendances can hinder building up a growing maturity of unity.
A more deep-seated problem may be the fear that unity may be damaged by looking at possibly divisive issues, whether this is very different beliefs about theology, such as expectation of miracles, or morality, such as attitudes towards homosexuality, or grievances over the experience of racism. It would be helpful if bodies such as Churches Together or the Evangelical Alliance could provide group material that would facilitate closer relationships.
2. A stronger commitment from church leaders.
Granberg-Michaelson, who worked closely with the World Council of Churches, urged them to ‘make a primary commitment of outreach to the vast number of denominations and groups that are outside of the ecumenical world. In practical terms, this would require an intentional commitment of resources and staff time’ (p 54). The same could be said of the ‘historic’ churches generally, not least the Church of England. It is notable that whilst the Church of England has spent much time thinking, and often agonising, about relationships with ethnic minority Christians in its midst, it has paid virtually zero attention to the proliferating number of minority ethnic churches and believers from a very wide range of ethnicities. At times one suspects the negligence comes from a lingering hubris that we are the church, when in reality the energies of minority ethnic Christians are overwhelmingly concentrated in diasporic churches – part of the explanation for their low participation in the Church of England. Nor for the most part can this be explained by racism in the Church, but by the choices, historic patterns, evangelistic zeal and cultural identity of the diasporic churches (see blog #72). So, for example, the church’s formative ‘From Lament to Action’ report is written as though such churches do not exist, nor do they have any place in the mission strategies of most Anglican dioceses.
An ‘intentional commitment’ from historic church leaders, notably the Church of England, along the lines Granberg-Michaelson speaks of, is essential if effective ‘missional bridges’ with diasporic churches are to carry the traffic that is now needed. Probably our greatest weakness in developing a collaborative approach to mission between ‘historic’ and ‘diasporic’ churches is the lack of powerful advocacy from the leaders of historic churches.
A sub-set of such intentionality would be to make more of the existing links that already exist through the renting of ‘historic’ church premises to recently formed ‘diasporic’ congregations (see my blog # 59 on the topic). Whilst such relationships can be complex, finding ways to strengthen our ‘institutional memory’ of experience gained from such links would move them from ad hoc financial relationships to a more coherent and mission focussed strategy.
3. Partnering.
Moving on from the above, is the possibility of partnering in mission above the level of immediate localities, but not at a national and denominational level, but rather where there are affinities between Christian groups. For example, at times the Holy Trinity, Brompton network and the Redeemed Christian Church of God have worked together in hosting events. Is that continuing? What lessons have been learned? What experience might be available to the wider church.
4. The role of books, radio and tv.
A generation or two back a mark of being an ‘evangelical’ was reading books by John Stott. That time is long gone. Alongside the proliferation of diasporic and independent congregations has gone growing diversity and segmentation of media expressions. The Nigerian-based Christ’s Embassy used to have a bookshop at Hendon Central where virtually the entire stock (apart from Bibles) was written by the denomination’s leader and his wife. The ease of importing and distributing books means that supply is easily fragmented and customised for particular constituencies (even worse in the case with You Tube and other forms of social media). By contrast, the more demanding requirements of producing radio and tv tends to lead to greater concentration in fewer outlets. In this respect radio stations such as ‘Premier’ can play an important part in furthering (to quote Paul’s desire for the fractious Corinthians) ‘that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you be perfectly united in mind and thought’ (1 Cor 1:10). Some years back I attended a meeting at Premier concerned to develop inter-ethnic unity. I am not sure how far this has progressed, but surely radio and tv have great strategic possibilities for developing inter-ethnic and inter-ecclesial unity in understanding and mission.
I suspect church members take in, often unselectively, from Christian radio and tv more than leaders realise (whose faith tends to be bookish rather than aural). It could be that such media are the sleeping giants in the development of greater unity in mission across varieties of denomination and ethnicity.
5. Theological training.
The ‘historic’ and ‘diasporic’ streams meet together to some degree in studying at ‘non-denominational’ institutions such as London School of Theology or Roehampton University. But newer churches like the RCCG are now also running their own training institutions. It will be sad if staff and students in the different cultural/ecclesial streams never encounter each other in terms of both theology and practice. The sudden rise and acceptability of meeting by Zoom should open up great new possibilities for interaction, not just between institutions in this country, but raising the possibility of drawing on global experience and expertise as part of students’ training, and familiarising them with very different patterns of church life and understanding. A possible contribution that Global Connections itself could make would be to facilitate such interaction
We need to talk about the English.
If in the first instance ‘missional bridges’ refers to enabling greater relationships between different expressions of Christianity, but a more important bridge is between all Christians in this country and the very much larger number for whom faith in Jesus has very little meaning – the proposed forum is ‘for the sake of God’s mission here’. And that particularly means the English. On returning from his long ministry in India, the late Lesslie Newbigin discerned that the secularised West now constituted a much tougher and intractable mission challenge. What contributions can diasporic churches make?
Positives.
a) Awakening the traditional churches to a much more vigorous and expectant approach to prayer. Certainly for myself that has been one of the great blessing of such interactions. I think of a young Nigerian who told me that when he fasted opportunities to witness to his faith came far more readily.
b) The influence of high-profile Christian figures. Thirty years ago Premier League footballers who made the sign of the cross on coming on to the pitch would have been regarded with surprise or derision. The influx of majority world players since then has normalised it. This may only be the re-normalising of a once common though not necessarily profound Christian gesture, but it is a small gesture in the extension of ‘Christian habits’. (Last week Liverpool’s very English Harvey Elliot crossed himself whilst awaiting the outcome of a VAR goal decision.)
Similarly the number of African-background actors who speak of their faith, makes the acceptance of Christian faith more thinkable for the general population.
c) Making moral dissent stronger and more acceptable. Several of the high profile cases were the right of Christians to dissent from what are wrongly seen as legally binding views, notably over dissenting from the cultural pressures to agree with same-sex marriage, have come from Christians from diasporic backgrounds, possibly because they are accustomed to the more robust defence of Christian convictions than western Christians have become used to. The view that ‘liberal’ moral values should be accepted as a matter of course by Christians has been contested most courageously by diasporic Christians.
d) Expressing faith in stronger emotional and non-verbal terms. The cerebral strength of western Christianity is not something to apologise for, but it is not the only range we should be operating in, and diasporic churches and Christians bring an emotional power that historic churches often lack. White responses to black gospel music can easily be shallow and too readily packaged as only ‘culture’; nonetheless Christian concepts are being communicated. Of much greater heft and authenticity was Les Isaac’s sermon at the Parliamentary Prayer Breakfast where fundamental Christian realities were proclaimed, and – with national political impact – received.
The church’s greatest – and growing – failure is our lack of impact on white working class people; the infusion of non-western religious enthusiasm has missionary potential.
Limitations.
The hope that diasporic Christianity as at present will effectively counter the growing secularity of white Britain is nonetheless over-optimistic, without giving closer thought to how ‘God’s mission here’ might be taken forward. Hopes for effective ‘reverse mission’ will continue to be disappointed.
a) Enthusiasm is not enough.
A study of African Christian groups at the University of Kent pointed out that such groups had very little experience or indeed expectation of seeing white students become Christians. Very few ‘diasporic’ churches have had success in drawing in white members. (A partial exception here would be the ‘international’ charismatic churches such as Hillsong, which are strengthened by significant numbers of minority ethnic young people – though less so leaders – and which impact cross-ethnic young people). Loud, street corner open air evangelists will not revitalise faith in Britain.
b) English culture needs to be taken seriously. It is the occupational hazard of missionaries to fail to see how different is the target culture from their own. Since the traditional English churches struggle to communicate with the secularised English, especially working class, people it is not surprising that diasporic churches do. In this respect ‘missional bridges’ that enable church leaders from both streams to closely collaborate in shared mission is strategically important. Defining, let alone understanding, ‘English culture’ is no easy thing. I once thought that the Opening Ceremony of the 2012 Olympics was a remarkably inventive and adept take on who we are, but sadly the decade that has followed has seen growing division and cynicism.
Failure to take seriously the challenges of secularism – morally, intellectually, politically – will also damage the prospects of diasporic churches themselves. Just as church growth in South Korea has now peaked and is declining in the face of both hedonism and scepticism, do diasporic churches will lose the allegiance of their British educated children unless they can draw on the lessons learned, albeit very imperfectly, by western churches.
If the two traditions continue to live and witness apart they will die apart. If there is loving respectful sharing, and a deep readiness to learn from each other we may yet be able to see the gospel revivified ‘for the sake of God’s mission here’.
*********************
One of the most remarkable developments in world Christianity this centure has been the very rapid growth of the church in Iran, spreading over into the Iranian diaspora in this country, with a great many churches now having Iranian members, so it is good to pass on this -
‘Message from David Yeghnazar of Elam Ministries
Day of Prayer for Iran, Sunday 23rd October, 2022
As I’m sure you’re aware, there is unrest across Iran. The atmosphere is one of pain, grief and anger. Now is a crucial time to pray.
Will you join churches around the world in prayer this Sunday: October 23rd?
Simple prayer resources are available at elam.com/dayofprayer to help your church get involved.
I anticipate that as churches around the world unite in intercession this Sunday, the Iranian church will be encouraged and strengthened.’