Sign In
Basket 0 Items

BASKET SUMMARY

Sign In
Basket 0 Items

BASKET SUMMARY

Editorial: Christian Social Responsibility Then and Now

ANDREW YATES

One hundred years ago, in 1924, the Conference on Politics, Economics and Citizenship (COPEC) was held in Birmingham, attended by over 1400 delegates. It was convened by William Temple who was then Bishop of Manchester and who saw the acute social and economic hardships faced by so many in his diocese. These included harsh working conditions, no social security or health care for the unemployed, poor housing and hunger. COPEC was Temple’s response to this terrible situation
In January 2024 the Joseph Rowntree Trust published its Poverty Report. Paul Kissack, the chief executive of the JRF, said: ‘Over the last two decades, we have seen poverty deepen, with more and more families falling further and further below the poverty line. Little wonder that the visceral signs of hardship and destitution are all around us – from rocketing use of food banks to growing numbers of homeless families.’
This edition of Crucible looks at some of the ways that the Church has responded in more recent times to social and economic hardships.
We begin with a contemporary response by Hannah Ling who is the Social Justice Adviser in the Diocese of Oxford. One of the key tools in her work is Community Organising. She describes how this enables the local church to regain its confidence in working for social justice ‘upstream’ and being more politically vocal and active. It also fits in with the Church’s journey to become less patriarchal and colonial in its approach to addressing poverty and inequality.
A reflection follows on work within all the Anglican dioceses of the South West of England between 1980 and 2020, under the banner of Social Responsibility – also sometimes known as Church and Society. Martyn Goss, the lead author, assesses the impact of this ministry under six headings: Activism, Advocacy, Agency, Alleviation, Analysis, and Attentiveness, with illustrations from
across the region. Each diocese responded in their own way to the
pressing social issues arising in their areas, including homelessness,
food insecurity and asylum seekers. However, Goss draws attention
to the strong spirit of co-operation across the region which led to
a greater impact overall. Other key features of this work were a
nimbleness and an ability to react quickly and effectively to new
challenges.
In the third article, Colin Brady stays in the South West and
looks at the church’s engagement through the lens of Industrial
Mission (IM). The original model of IM was developed in Sheffield
by Ted Wickham in 1944 and replicated across the country. Brady
traces the Sheffield mission’s influence in several strands of church
life and mission-related activity in the South West. We see a strong
network of industrial mission, social responsibility, and church
leaders, enabling the churches in this region to make a significant
contribution to the challenges facing society.
In the final article, Graham James looks at the way the Church
has approached social issues through the publication of many
reports over recent years. These have varied from nuclear weapons
and euthanasia through to the more recent Coming Home which
focused on housing, and Love Matters on families and households.
He contrasts the earlier reports that were published under the
Board of Social Responsibility with the later ones emerging from
Archbishops’ Commissions. James reflects on what the reports
(and the level of response to them) suggests about the way the
Church of England now engages nationally with social issues. There
is a clear and significant difference from its practice in much of the
20th century.
Across the four articles there are several common themes. One is
that of partnership – both within and outside the Church structures.
Both Social Responsibility and Industrial Mission practitioners
worked naturally and freely across the boundary between faith and
secular, to seek out and collaborate with partners in the public,
private and voluntary community sectors. This often embraced
multi-faith partnerships. Community Organising in the Thames
Valley, promoted by the churches, has led to joint working with the
University of Oxford, Thames Valley Police, charities like Aspire,
and local authority leaders, on specific aims for the common good.

Subscribe now for full access or register to continue reading

To continue reading subscribe to gain full access or register to read one article free this month

Subscribe now for full access or register to continue reading

To continue reading subscribe to gain full access or register to read one article free this month