Multicultural and Cross-cultural Uniting Church

Multicultural and Cross-cultural Uniting Church

1.         Uniting What

In the book Introducing Uniting Church in Australia, Andrew Dutney who has been elected as the President of the Uniting Church in 2009, says that the Uniting Church is still poorly understood in its own country and largely unknown elsewhere in the world, although it is a significant Australian organization. (4) It is particularly true to many people who recently migrated to Australia from Asia and the Pacific since there is seldom similar ‘uniting churches’ in their homeland. Many would still join the Uniting Church for it is known as a multicultural church and therefore welcoming and supporting them with such as church property and ministry.

However, it is reality that the multicultural agenda is not always a priority nor well understood in the church. In this chapter, the development of cross-cultural ministry will be analyzed from a number of perspectives.

The Uniting Church is formed in 1977 by the union of three denominations; the Congregational Union of Australia, The Methodist Church of Australia; and the Presbyterian Church of Australia. They had been transplanted from Britain to Australia in the nineteen century from the beginning of the settlement. Although three churches were significant churches in their own right, why they even began to think the union, asks Dutney in his book.

The founding generation of the Uniting Church known as ‘the nation builders’ achieved much among other things:

            - Established the Australian welfare state

            - Abolished the White Australian Policy

- Secured the recognition of the full citizenship of Aboriginal Australians in the Constitution

            - Learnt to call Australia (rather than Britain) “home”

- Rejected the sectarian bigotry that had made Catholic and Protestant Australians virtual enemies since the earliest days of white settlement. (6)

They found that their separate denominations had become real hindrance to their participation in God’s mission and were convinced that renewed discipleship of Christ now required in the new land. The key question was “what is God doing with His world?” It is all about mission, says Dutney in his book.

So a hallmark of the Basis of Union of the new Uniting Church was its openness to ongoing correction and reform in the light of the call to mission. If it has to go, it has to go. It’s all about mission. Even the name, Uniting rather than United, had that sense of openness to new demands or opportunities. (17)

Only eight years later of the Union, some of the old and new generation of Uniting Church found another opportunity of mission with new migrants, particularly from Asia and the Pacific. Many of those migrants have been finding a home in the Uniting Church.

The founding generation said that “they seek a wider unity in the power of the Holy Spirit”. What does “a wider unity” mean for the present generation of the Uniting Church? (35)

When the 1985 fourth Assembly of Uniting Church passed a motion that ‘The Uniting Church is a multicultural church’, this sentiment was reflected and was carried on. There was a sense of excitement of a new mission, especially together with a resolution of setting up the Uniting Aboriginal & Islands Christian Congress. In its report, the Commission for World Mission states;

There has been widespread enthusiasm in the church about discovering and affirming the multicultural nature of the church. There has been considerable rejoicing also in the decision to establish the Congress…This is a multicultural church, but it is not so easy for minority groups in the church to feel that this is their church. It is not so easy for the majority group to listen to minority groups or share power. Yet these considerations are clearly keys to becoming a church in which people of different races can participate with confidence and satisfaction. (Commission for World Mission, Handbook and Working papers, 1985, 1.3, C13.1.).

The nine paragraphs statement shows some of history, theology, vision, hospitality, and hopes to be a church of all nations. Since this exciting and bold beginning, more than two decade ago, the local congregations and presbyteries have been busy to translate the vision, to find what it means to be a multicultural church, and to implement hospitality at the grassroots level. During the time, the growth of minority ethnic congregations has been remarkable and the multicultural congregations have also been developing in metropolitan cities. The vibrant faith and cultural richness of different groups within the church has created active cross-cultural dynamics and has produced tremendous results. Multicultural ministry has indeed become a significant agenda of the church.

On the other hands, the church has experienced unexpected challenges and difficulties on the process. Notably in the area of sharing church property, prejudice and racism, reception of ministers from overseas, working in the presbytery structure, lack of cross-cultural education and theology have often caused a conflict among different communities in the church. In fact, many people and congregations are still struggling to find out what it means to be multicultural and cross-cultural. If it is all about mission, growing as a multicultural church seems not an option for the Uniting Church.

2.         Diversity in Unity

The understanding of ‘unity in diversity’ and ‘diversity in unity’ need be examined here. The recent debate on Sexuality and Leadership in the Uniting Church has made it more complicated as to what kind of diversity involves and how far must the church welcome or tolerate or reject.

The past and present Moderators of the NSW Synod wrote a public letter when the homosexuality and leadership debate became heated in the church, titled ‘We are a rainbow people’.

The Uniting Church is, by its very origins, a diverse church. Members of the three “uniting” denominations brought with them differences in some theological perceptions, administrative processes and personal Christian experiences…The diversity of our church that makes it both exciting and challenging, but also calls us to love more deeply (Insights, June 2004, 4).

This pastoral letter reminded the members the nature of the church and how the members should not lose of the Christian vision. Especially the Moderators believed that “our church has a God-given role within the life of the nation. While some churches may seek to achieve unity by requiring of their members a certain sameness, granting little latitude, the Uniting Church seeks to be more open, welcoming diversity, with its difficulties” (4).

Unlike, the issue of different sexuality, the vision of cultural and ethnic diversity, known as multicultural church, has been received with less controversy in the church.

Becoming an ethnically and culturally diverse and inclusive church that illustrates ‘unity in diversity’ and ‘diversity in unity’ has provided much theological and practical challenge for the church and it continues to the present.

In their book Many Colored Kingdom, Parrett says “Diversity is not something to be sought or tolerated; it is a reality we must obey and endeavor to preserve. Indeed, neither the idea of unity without diversity nor the idea of diversity without unity is a biblically viable option” (Conde-Frazier, Kang, Parrett, 76). As much as the diversity without unity is unbiblical, unity without diversity is also not the biblical concept. Unity presupposes diversity. Like the analogy of the body of Christ, there are many different essential parts and its functions but it is united in the Christ who is the head of the body. Parrett points out a number of biblical vision of unity actually embraces diversity such as the doctrine of the Trinity (Deut 6:4), the institution of marriage (Gen 2:24), Paul’s vision of one body of Christ (Ephe 4, 1 Cor 12). There is a unity among the Triune God, between the husband and wife and in a body, but they all require the presence of diversity to be one.

Also in the multicultural Uniting Church, it does not just insert people from different ethnic backgrounds to align the dominant cultural practice for the sake of the unity, but to include and encourage them to contribute with the gifts that God has given to them.

The establishment of a Korean Commission for example, could be seen not as a victory for Korean churches, but rather as an acknowledgement of the difficulty denominational structures experience in truly accommodating particular needs of migrants. Developing a bi or multi-lingual church is one way of recognising and responding to the needs of a particular community in the life of the Church. At the same time, the minority ethnic churches have also been required to change themselves to effectively serve their people and relate with other ethnic groups in Australia. Their cultural and traditional ways of ‘doing church’ are also being challenged, not only by belonging to the Uniting Church, but also by their own people as they experience change in a new land. An article written by Son on the establishment of the Commission addresses the concern rather well. He sees the formation of an ethnic Presbytery not as a helpful step forward but as something that undermines the church’s multicultural vision of the church, causing it to fragment and splinter (Son: 2004).

3.         What is Multicultural Ministry then?

One of the hard tasks for the multicultural and cross-cultural network of the church has been to convince the whole church that this ministry is not just for the minority ethnic communities nor is a problem to solve but an opportunity to grasp. At the early stage of the cross-cultural ministry, the title of the national worker was ‘ethnic officer’ which implied to work for the ethnic people to settle in the church. This perception has been one of the obstacles advancing the ministry because the mainstream of the church considered it as ‘welfare service for the migrant congregations’. As the title of the national staff changed over a time to Director for Multicultural Ministry, the scope of work has been broadened. However, it is true that the previous view still exist.

This notion of ‘multicultural ministry is ethnic ministry’ is also related to the use of name ‘migrant-ethnic’ which refers to Non English Speaking Background congregations and members in the church. The term ‘ethnic’ and ‘migrant ethnic’ continues to be used partly because it was hard to find alternative term to refer to these people. Over the many years, the term served its purpose of highlighting the important ministry of welcoming new migrant members and congregations into the life of the UCA.

However at its 2001 meeting, the Assembly Multicultural Ministry Committee expressed the view that the term ‘migrant-ethnic’ be removed from official papers and search for alternative terminology. One of the reasons was that the term could pigeonhole ‘migrant’ in a way that is permanently marginalizing, overlooking the fluidity and changing nature of cultural identity. Language is not neutral but it connotes and associates either positive or negative. Migrants and more importantly their descendants do not want any longer to be typecast as ‘migrant-ethnic’, but rather as Australian, albeit, hyphenated Australians.

With this understanding, the NSW Parliament also replaces the ‘Ethnic Affairs Commission’ with ‘Community Relations Commission’. “This is a victory for the migrant communities of NSW, they no longer want to be regarded as ‘ethnics’, they are proud Australians” says the Premier Bob Carr on news release on October 12, 2000.

In terms of naming, there was another change. The agency name of ‘Assembly Multicultural Ministry’ has been changed to more inclusive name ‘Assembly Multicultural and Cross-Cultural Ministry’.

The Reference Committee honors the multicultural journey we have been on the last 21 years but has increasingly found the terminology of ‘cross-cultural ministry’ helpful in conveying the invitation and challenge of living as God’s diverse people. Multicultural conveys the presence of a multiplicity of cultures. Cross-cultural reminds us that active interaction is needed....(A cross-cultural paradigm invites all of us to travel beyond our cultural boundaries, to discover new understandings of God and what it means to be God’s people. It is a paradigm that has no centre or periphery but is focused on the crossing journey that is needed. (Report to the Eleventh Assembly, B14-2, 2005)

One other example was the change of the job title in the NSW Synod. The cross-cultural position ‘Cross-cultural Consultant’ has been changed into part time ‘Cross-cultural Consultant (Asia)’ and ‘Cross-cultural Consultant (Pacific)’ in 2006, unintentionally sending messages to the wider church that cross-cultural ministry is for Asians and Pacific Islanders. Although the Multicultural Ministry Reference Group of the Synod opposed to the change of the title, the Anglo member majority Committee who had the decision making power went a head with the new structure. The following is the part of the letter of concern;

The Reference Group fears the splitting of the Consultancy into two positions, determined on the basis of ethnic focus, will return us to the old model with a perceived role of bolstering up mono-ethnic congregations…There is also concern among some members that numerically smaller Asian and pacific communities, and those of African or European origin, may feel overlooked in the process. …We believe the essential quality of an effective cross cultural consultant is not their language or ethnicity, but the ability to freely cross over between cultures. (Ivan Roberts, 20 Nov 2003)

Multicultural ministry is a ministry of all churches in a multicultural context. Although models of the ministry may not be the same according to situation, this has been one of the core message promoted and be practiced. 

4. Multicultural Education

Diversity is often a highly contested and conflicting experience. Embracing such diversity means embracing shifting perspectives, attitudes and even principles. Multicultural education in ministry attempts to develop a spiritual sensitivity that allows people to see neighbors more fully and completely as human beings, and thereby meet their needs more effectively. It involves developing a multicultural sensitivity that is a habit of mind and heart rather than a form of political correctness. (Talvacchia, 4)

In seeking to live out the declaration as a multicultural church, an intentional education process is therefore vital, particularly identifying and overcoming the barriers that exist between people because of different cultural background.

A workshop called ‘Confronting Racism – Celebrating Diversity’ has been a key tool to de-learn prejudices and to build bridges among people. From the beginning of the cross-cultural journey, the church recognized that “most people in both church and community refuse to see the promotion of ethnocentric values and mono-cultural perspectives as racism. They fail to see that the dignity, identity and security of a racial minority is threatened if the mono-cultural perspective prevails” (Commission for World Mission, 1985, 162). The 10^th Assembly reaffirmed the church’s commitment to work to overcome racism and model the inclusive love of Christ.

Trusting that in Jesus Christ God has broken down barriers between all people, and by the Holy Spirit is able to transform lives and heal communities,

a) to recognize again that racism is a sin that reflects our alienation from God and from one another and is incompatible with the Gospel;

b) to reaffirm its commitment to work to overcome racism in Australia and beyond;

c) to called the church to model the inclusive love of Christ, building communities of justice and love and practicing respect and equality in all our relationships; and

d) to urge all members of Uniting Church, particularly those in leadership, to attend a ‘Confronting Racism’ or ‘Looking with New Eyes’ workshops to explore ways of working to eradicate racism, (The 10^th Assembly, 03.10.02)

Out of this context, a workshop ‘Confronting Racism – Celebrating Diversity’ which content is largely borrowed from a similar workshop of Evangelical Lutheran Church in USA has been introduced to the church. In the beginning, this workshop was facilitated in a number of synods, but soon it stopped working except the NSW Synod.

The limited staff and absence of a budget for the workshops have hampered efforts to fulfill the intention of the Assembly resolution that all leaders in the church participate in this workshop. At the same time, it is also true that workshop of this kind brings certain degree of discomfort and upsetting experience for some participants. Some part of the church has not been so keen to participate in such a workshop since they were not ‘racists’.

At the NSW Synod however, this workshop has been implemented regularly among congregations, presbyteries and theological college. The workshop is renamed as ‘Cross-cultural Relationship Workshop’ to include wider range of people in the church. At the 11^th Assembly, there was  another resolution saying ‘to encourage synods to make cross-cultural relationship workshop mandatory for all Uniting Church ministry agents’ (06.16 (d)).

According to the 2001 National Church Life Survey, the church ministers in the UCA NSW Synod placements expressed that cross-cultural ministry is the second most areas of felt need in ministry formation. It is true that there has been no such specific subjects have been available for theological students, and when they graduate and go to a multicultural church, they have to learn through their experiences.

When a leader in the church is not confident in relating other ethnic groups, the leader tends to maintain mono-cultural ministry in multicultural context. At the same time, if an Australia born or grown ethnic background person is not equipped in cross-cultural ministry, the person is likely have a tension with their own ethnic group or not being called to a such church. Cross-cultural education should happen in both ways.

It is only three or four years that United Theological College in Sydney has made a week of cross-cultural orientation compulsory for new students at the college and has provided a number of cross-cultural subjects for students to explore. Also Masters Degree in Cross-cultural studies has been created together with Charles Stuart University and more students are majoring Ph D in the area of research.

One recent letter from Tony Floyd the National Director of the Assembly Multicultural & Cross-cultural Ministry shows the importance of cross-cultural education in responding a letter from John Jegasothy who is a chairperson of the NSW Multicultural Ministry Reference Group.

The concerns to which you refer relating to a lack of cross-cultural education or courses at the national level, which are intentionally and consistently applying to the whole church, including at theological colleges, are ones that are very much in my mind and on the mind of the National Reference Committee. They are also a central element in conversations that I have regularly with colleagues and others involved in a variety of educational processes across the UCA. I strongly agree that for a multicultural church like ours, good cross-cultural education programs are vital not only for short term learning but also for long term transformation. (December 9, 2009)

Regardless of the importance, there has not been much cross-cultural related education program at the presbytery and congregation level. Partly it is because of the low level of enthusiasm among the leaders in the congregations and partly because of the limits of staff person available from the Assembly and Synod.

               

5.         Review of the Multicultural Church

At the 10^th Assembly, a Task Group was set up to review current multicultural policies and how well these policies are implemented within the life of the church. The policies, and in some cases regulations, identified included the following: ‘We are a Multicultural Church’ (1985 Statement and Resolution), The Mandate of the Multicultural Committee (July 1998), Guideline on Property Sharing in a Multicultural Church (1992, revised 2003), The Reception of Ministers from Partner Churches; Guidelines for Receiving Mission Co-workers (1998), The Alternative Regulations for Korean Congregations (1999/2000), Guidelines for Migrant Ethnic Congregations of the UCA in relation to the UCA and Homeland Churches (2000), Guidelines on National Conferences (1991 revised 2003), Resolution on Racism (2003), and membership and Representation in a Culturally Diverse Church (2003).

In term of ‘Membership in a Culturally Diverse Church’, the Assembly recognized that people from many different cultural backgrounds are taking their place in the life of the church and sought to ensure this is reflected in all the councils of the church. This has been an important issue especially for the minority groups for their voices to be heard to the wider church and this has been a struggle for them to achieve.

The 10^th Assembly also requested that instead of six, there be twelve nominations from migrant communities to the Assembly. At this 11^th Assembly there is provision for eight nominations. This has been disappointing not only for the agency but it also means we have not been able to fully take up the 10^th Assembly’s desire to have greater visibility of people from culturally diverse backgrounds and national Conferences, at this Assembly. (The 11^th Assembly Multicultural and Cross-cultural Ministry Report, B14-3)

One other area of cross-cultural work has been that modeling ‘theologically disciplined and collaborative ways of working’ in the resources and of working with other agencies of the church. Cross-cultural ministry itself is a ‘new way of being the national church’ pushing the church beyond familiar models to embrace the challenges of living in multicultural and multi-faith settings. This ministry is to assist congregations to reflect and develop contextually appropriate ministry models and strengthen the missional focus of the church. Working with synods, presbyteries and theological seminaries in fostering the cross-cultural work has been identified as one of the priority.

“The major concerns of ethnic congregations were rarely attended to in presbyteries…for the system to function satisfactorily it is essential that leaders of presbyteries’ pastoral relation committee spend time informally with leaders of ethnic congregations trying to understand their situation.” (B14-7)

Developing National Conferences has been a key initiative of the agency since 1987. National Conferences based on their ethnic groups provide a place where congregations of the same culture consult together. Conferences bring key leaders together and they “help build a sense of community and belong to the UCA. They give communities space to reflect on what is going well in their congregations and what problems exist” (B14-4).

“The review identified that the main difficulty the Conference face is the lack of funding with the cost of travel a major obstacle…The Conferences are now free to convey decisions and recommendations directly to councils and agencies of the church and make recommendations to the Assembly Standing Committee or the Assembly”. (B14-4)

Sharing property in the multicultural church has been one of the most controversial topics at the grassroots. Although the Assembly has the guideline as to how the church care and use church buildings with other ethnic groups, the guideline has been largely unfamiliar to many if not ignored. There have been three models of cross-cultural property sharing in the church, namely ‘landlord and tenant relationship’, ‘guest and host relationship’ and ‘partner relationship’. There are cases where minority ethnic congregations have been worshipping in a property for decades and they continue to be regarded as ‘tenant’ or ‘guest’. Although the Assembly and the Synods promotes a joint ‘beneficial interest’ and joint custodial responsibilities, many dominant Anglo congregations find difficult to equally share the property or pass them onto the growing ethnic congregations. The 11^th Assembly passes a resolution to form a property sharing task group to research further on the sharing property in the multicultural context and asks them to bring a report at the next Assembly meeting. The following document is the outcome of the work and is worth mention the full report here.

            Property Sharing in Cross-cultural Settings

1. The 11^th Assembly identified property sharing in cross-cultural settings as a significant issue to be addressed, and appointed a task group to survey all situations where two or more Uniting Church congregations are sharing property, and to report to the next Assembly.

2. As expected, results of the survey indicate that the majority of cross-cultural property sharing arrangements occurs in urban areas of NSW & Victoria. Of the 358 congregations who responded to the survey 32% indicated they did share their property with another congregation. However, of the 114 who indicated they are sharing property, only 31 are with other Uniting Church congregations. 73% of congregations sharing properties are doing so with non-Uniting congregations. Of the 31 Uniting Church congregations sharing property with other UCA congregations, 20 were in NSW and 9 in Victoria. Of the 20 relationships in NSW, 16 were described as a ‘partnership’, and 4 as ‘host and guest’. The understanding of ‘partnership’ may however vary, and not necessarily be one of joint custodial stewardship. In contrast, of the 30 congregations in NSW sharing property with non-UCA congregations, 20 were described as ‘landlord & tenant’ arrangements, eight as ‘host & guest’, and only two as a partnership.

3. On the basis of these survey results it would appear where two UCA congregations are sharing property some attempt has been made to develop a useful working relationship. It may be helpful to explore in greater detail with those 31 congregations the formal basis of the relationship, and whether or not both congregations are equal partners in joint custodial stewardship.

4.     The situation where property is shared with non-Uniting congregations appears quite different, seen primarily as a financial arrangement of ‘landlord & tenant’. Whilst to an extent this is understandable, UCA congregations need to ensure, as a minimum, they conduct themselves ethically, but also hopefully seek to develop some level of relationship which might support the worship and mission aspirations of the ‘tenant’ congregation. There is need to encourage congregations to explore the missional possibilities that can emerge with property sharing arrangements. Sadly, however, it appears some non-Uniting congregations in ‘renting’ arrangements with Uniting congregations have found the experience discouraging and are therefore reluctant to consider closer ties with the UCA.

5. The great majority of congregations who host other congregations reported they initially became involved through an approach from the other congregation requesting a place to worship, rather than for intentional mission or financial reasons. This suggests many congregations may drift into a property sharing relationship without much thought as to the implications and responsibilities. This was borne out by the survey with only a handful of respondents involved in property sharing arrangements aware of the Assembly endorsed Property Policy in a Multicultural Church. There appears a need to better inform congregations on both the policy on property sharing and resources available to help them develop partner relationships.

6. Very few respondents indicated any formal agreement or memorandum of understanding had been negotiated in such property sharing arrangements. It is important for congregations sharing property to formalize the nature of the relationship at the outset to avoid possible future misunderstandings, as well as establish processes for resolving issues as they arise. Any such agreements would need to be culturally sensitive to be effective. It would be helpful for the Assembly to provide guidelines or sample agreements identifying key elements to be included in such agreements, subject to culturally sensitive variation in each individual case.

7. Nonetheless, few of the respondents indicated any major problems with arrangements apart from ‘dirty halls’ and minor property damage from ‘hard use.’ Such issues were considered capable of being handled at the local level without involving presbytery or other councils of the church. (One Uniting congregation did ask a non-UCA congregation to leave because of problems, but later accepted another congregation from the same cultural group as the earlier ‘tenant’.) 

8. Whilst at first glance this lack of difficulties may seem positive, it could mean there is little or no interaction between the congregations. If two congregations of different cultural backgrounds are seriously working together then one could expect a little healthy tension develop as both seek to work through differences of understanding in how decisions are made and responsibility shared.

9. One positive feature to come out of these hosting relationships with non-UCA congregations has been some of the ‘guest’ congregations are now considering possible membership in the Uniting Church; two out of eight congregations in Queensland

10. The high level of non-UCA congregations utilizing Uniting Church properties, 73% of reported property sharing arrangements, does however lend weight to concerns raised by member congregations of the Korean Commission in NSW and the Assembly Uniting National Conferences Working Group. Both bodies expressed concern that little if any priority/preference is given to Uniting Church congregations seeking places of worship over non-UCA congregations. There is also concern if Uniting Church properties are made available to congregations being established in Australia by ‘home’ churches, such as by the Free Wesleyan Church of Tonga. This may encourage congregations to stay linked with the ‘home’ church rather than consider membership in the UCA.

11. The survey form included a question whether UCA congregations currently sharing property with a non-Uniting Church congregation would be prepared to terminate that arrangement in order to accommodate another Uniting Church congregation seeking a place to worship. In response, the vast majority said ‘no’ and the others displayed definite reluctance to do so. From a positive viewpoint reasons given were that, the relationship having been developed, the host congregation felt a responsibility to the non-UCA congregation, as well as concern for the difficulties moving would cause them. In the event their property became vacant they would be more sensitive to the needs of other Uniting Church congregations.

12. It appears the current policy is presently, at best, perceived as ‘guidelines’. Some respondents suggested that a directive from presbytery or other councils of the church requiring priority treatment for Uniting Church congregations may have greater impact and assist ‘host’ congregations when seeking to terminate arrangement with non-UCA ‘guest’ congregations.  

13. One possibility canvassed by the group was whether by-laws could be introduced by synods establishing procedures to be followed when approaches are made from Uniting Church congregations, currently without a place to worship, and seeking to share property currently utilized by a Uniting Church congregation. The by-laws could provide for:

·               A register to be kept, either by the synod or presbyteries, of Uniting Church congregations seeking a place of worship;

·               A requirement that any Uniting Church congregation considering making their property available to a non-UCA congregation, first check if any UCA congregations are listed on the register seeking accommodation in their area;

·               A requirement that congregations currently sharing property with a non-Uniting congregation give preference to UCA congregations seeking a property when the term of an existing contract with the non-UCA congregation concludes;

·               Requirement that where two or more UCA congregations function from one property base, a culturally sensitive and appropriate form of written agreement will apply to that relationship, according rights of usage, an appropriate sharing of costs and take into account the ministry and mission needs of both congregations, on the basis of joint custodial stewardship.

o      This agreement to be approved by an appropriate council/agency of the UCA such as a synod Board of Finance & Property or presbytery.

(Report of the Assembly Property Sharing Review Group, 2009)

Translation of key documents into community languages has also been one of the key works of the cross-cultural ministry. The 2003 Assembly identifies the translation of key documents as something important but it has been difficult to put this commitment on to a solid footing. Part of the reason is again the lack of funding to do the translation work. No new funds have been provided for the specific area of work so translation has continually has been done relying on the good will and voluntary efforts of members of ethnic communities. However, it is remarkable to see some key documents such as Basis of Union translated into major ethnic groups.

“It is a real challenge to live as a multilingual church in ways that enable the full participation of all out members, especially those who are unable to adequately resourcing this area is not something that has yet been achieved by our church and this brings into question how serious we are in truly affirming ethnic and linguistic diversity.” (B14-7)

6. Multicultural Leadership and Resources

While many urban congregations are increasingly becoming ethnically diverse, staff diversity in terms of ethnicity at the Assembly and synods level is far from ideal. Since staff people at the major church office is seen as a reflection of leadership and decision making power, genuine multicultural church should able to include non-English background members as partners in the offices as well. While anyone who is called and able to lead should take up the leadership in the church regardless ethnic background, an intentional encouragement to ethnic members to take up leadership is crucial factor to be a healthy multicultural church.  It has been discouraging that the position of Multicultural & Cross-cultural National Director of the Assembly has been consecutively hold by Anglo-Celtic person, while there are some ethnic leaders who are able and willing.

One other fact is that since multicultural ministry is relatively new area of church work, not much funds has been available but is depended upon the allocation of related committee. Unlike other agencies in the church, this ministry hardly has inherited funds which limit the numbers of staff and the scope of their ministry. This is a reason why producing resources have been important for congregations so that they themselves can study and use them according to their needs.

There has been some useful resources published by the Uniting Church in Australia and beyond in Australia. Up until recently, multicultural workers have been heavily depending on materials from the northern America. Since the publication of The Cultural Pearl in 1986, it is only recent that churches in Australia have more seriously engaged in reflecting their cross-cultural ministry in their down under context. Following are some of resources available through the Uniting Church.

1) New Life in Australia (in Korean, UCA Assembly Commission for Mission, 1984)

2) ‘Uniting Church is a Multicultural Church’ (UCA Assembly, 1985)

3) Australian Migration Policy: A Uniting Church Perspective (Synod of Victoria, 1986)

4) ‘Report of the National Consultation on Ethnic Diversity’ (UCA Assembly Mission & Evangelism, 1990)

5) ‘Property Sharing in Multicultural Church’ (UCA Assembly, 1992)

6) Building Bridges (UCA Assembly Mission & Evangelism, 1993)

7) ‘Reception of Ministers from Partner Churches in Asia and the Pacific’ (UCA Assembly, 1997)

8) The Vision of a Multicultural Church (UCA Assembly Multicultural Ministry, 1998)

9) ‘Migrant-Ethnic Congregations in the UCA with Guidelines for Receiving Mission Co-workers’ (UCA Assembly, 1999)

10) You and I Our Stories (Yoo-Crowe SJ & Crowe C ed, 2000)

11) Welcome to the Uniting Church in Australia (in Korean, NSW Synod Board of Mission, 2001)

12) Manual for Cross-Cultural Relations Workshop (NSW Synod Board of Mission, 2001)

13) Multicultural Ministry (Yoo-Crowe SJ & Crowe C ed, INFORM, 2002)

14) 30 Years of Korean Ministry in Australia (Yang MD & Pearson C ed, 2004)

15) Growing Multicultural Congregations (Yang MD ed, 2004)

16) Faith in a Hyphen: Cross-cultural Theologies Down Under (Pearson C ed, 2004)

17) Living Together as God’s People in This Place (UCA Assembly Multicultural Ministry, 2005)

18) Something to Sing About! (UCA Assembly Multicultural Ministry, 2005)

19) A Handbook for Cross-Cultural Ministry (Hughes & Bond ed, 2005)

20) Snapshots of Multicultural Ministry (UCA Assembly Multicultural Ministry, 2006)

21) Crossing Borders: Shaping Faith, Ministry and Identity in Multicultural Australia (Richmond H & Yang MD ed, 2006)

22) Exploring Cross-Cultural Ministry (Yang MD ed, 2008)

23) Cross Culture (Pearson C ed, No 1. 2008)

24) Toward a Multicultural Church (in Korean, Yang MD, 2009)

References

Bevans, S, Models of Contextual Theology, Maryknoll, Orbis Books, 2002.

Bouma, G (ed), Many Religions, All Australian: Religious Settlement, Identity and Cultural Diversity, Melbourne, CRA, 1996.

Breckenridge J & R, What Color Is Your God? – Multicultural Education in the Church, Grand Rapids, Bridgepoint Books, 1995.

Carroll, S, ‘Weaving New Spaces: Christological Perspectives from Oceania and Oceanic Diaspora’, Studies in World Christianity, Vol. 10, Part 1, 10.1, UK, 2004.

Docker J & Fisher G (eds), Race, Colour and Identity in Australia and NZ, Sydney, UNSW Press, 2000.

Dutney, A, Introducing Uniting Church in Australia, Uniting Church Press, Sydney, 2008.

Elmer, D, Cross-cultural Connections, Downers Grove, Inter Varsity Press, 2002.

Emilsen W & S, Making Twenty Years, Sydney, UTC, 1997.

Fredrickson, GM, Racism: A Short History, Melbourne, Scribe Publications, 2002.

Greene, CJD, Christology in Cultural Perspective, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2004.

Goldberg, DT, Multiculturalism: A Critical Reader, Oxford, Blackwell, 1994.           

Habel, NC (ed), Religion and Multiculturalism in Australia, Melbourne, Australian Association for the Study of Religions, 1992.

Han, GS, ‘Korean Christianity in Multicultural Australia: Is it Dialogical or Segregating Koreans?’, Studies in World Christianity, Vol. 10, Part 1, 10.1, UK, 2004.

Hughes P & Bond S (ed), A Handbook for Cross-cultural Ministry, Adelaide, Openbook, 2005.

Jupp, J, From White Australia to Woomera, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Kivisto, P, Multiculturalism in a Global Society, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing, 2002.

Law, E, The Bush Was Blazing But Not Consumed, St Louis, Chalice Press, 1996.

              Inclusion: Making Room for Grace, St Louis, Chalice Press, 2000.

Lee, JY, Marginality – The Key to Multicultural Theology, Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 1995.

Lingenfelter S, Transforming Culture, Grand Rapids, Baker Books, 1998.

Mackay, H, Turning Point, pan Macmillan, Australia, 1999.

Matsuoka, F, The Color of Faith: Building Community In a Multicultural Society, United Church Press, Cleveland, 1998.

May, S (ed), Critical Multiculturalism, London, Falmer Press, 1999. 

Migliore, DL, Faith Seeking Understanding, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2004.

Ng, D (ed), People on the Way, Valley Forge, Judson Press, 1996.

Pearson C, Faith in Hyphen, Adelaid, Openbook Publishers, 2004.

Phan, PC & Lee, JY (eds), Journeys at the Margins: Toward an Autobiographical Theology in America-Asian Perspective, Collegeville, Liturgical Press, 1999.

Pohl, C, Making Room: Recovering Hospitality as a Christian Tradition, Grand Rapids, Erdmann, 1999.

Rhodes, SA, Where the Nations Meet, Downers Grove, InterVersity Press, 1998.

Robin, C, Global Diasporas, London, UCL Press, 1997.

Schreiter, R, The New Catholicity, Maryknoll, Orbis Books, 1997.

Son, YR, ‘Korean Commission: Womb of Mono-Ethnic Presbyteries and Doom of the Uniting Church’s Vision for a Multicultural Church, Uniting Church Studies, Vol. 10, No 2. 2, August, Australia, 2004.

Stone, J & Dennis, R, Race and Ethnicity, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing, 2003.

Tavan G, The long slow death of White Australia, Melbourne, Scribe Publications, 2005.

Talvacchia, K T, Critical Minds and Discerning Hearts – A Spirituality of Multicultural Teaching, St Louis, Chalice Press, 2003.

Theophanous A, Understanding Multiculturalism and Australian Identity, Melbourne, Elikia Books, 1995.

Yang & Pearson (ed), 30 Years Korean Ministry in Australia, Sydney, UTC, 2004.

Yang, MD (ed), Growing Multicultural Congregations, Sydney, BOM, 2003.

Copyright Myong Duk Yang