THE enduring nature of poverty and the Church’s capability to alleviate it were the topic of a resumed debate on the Thursday morning.
Mark Sheard (Archbishops’ Council) reminded members they were picking up a debate that ran out of time last 12 months and had been led by the Church Urban Fund to mark the fortieth anniversary of the report Faith within the City.
Most up-to-date figures showed that poverty had deepened in that point, Mr Sheard said. He quoted from people experiencing poverty, who were “only just surviving” due to a “relentless struggle” against rising costs, especially of food and other essentials. They also struggled to administer caring for disabled relations, he said. “It’s like walking on an icy pond, fearing at any point you is likely to be plunged into the cold water.”
Mr Sheard said that there have been 14 million voices like this “crying out for hope and justice”. One in five of the population was living in poverty, every one an actual one who had their very own story and struggles, “their very own reason to feel hopeless and abandoned by society, and perhaps even by God”.
These statistics and stories must be a reality check to a Church imagined to be holding out a “higher story of resurrection and hope”, he said. Injustice in society have to be transformed by the Church, he concluded. “I ask that we wholeheartedly recommit ourselves to ending poverty in all its forms, as we seek to be ambassadors of our Lord who got here to bring excellent news to the poor.”
Canon Kate Wharton (Liverpool) had lived and worked amongst extreme poverty for years, which frequently got here with high crime and anti-social behaviour, she said. Her church struggled to pay for even small expenses, couldn’t recruit officers or admin support, and left her covering bills and filling rotas alone. But she was proud to live and minister in Liverpool, despite its poverty, and desired to challenge the Synod concerning the barriers that stopped the poor from participating at every level of the Church. She hoped that the “excellent motion” can be carried.
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesCanon Kate Wharton (Liverpool) tells the Synod that she has lived and worked amongst extreme poverty for years
The Revd Emma Sykes (Birmingham) also ministered in a highly deprived context, but said that the Church had to maneuver away from day-centre-type activity towards empowerment. “It’s about working with, to not.” Her church had arrange a community hub, collaborating with local groups, and now offered activities starting from toddler groups to a youth café and English-language classes. This had been each hard but in addition “joyful”, changing her church to turn out to be a “higher reflection of our community and a more vivid picture of the Kingdom of God”. Too often, communities like hers were pitied or disdained, she said, but it surely was a spot wealthy with generosity.
The Revd Rachel Webbley (Canterbury) moved an amendment to acknowledge how poverty disproportionately affected people in ethnic minorities. Asking the Synod to hearken to individuals who had experience of poverty, she said that child-poverty rates were higher amongst Black and Bangladeshi families, as was in-work poverty and overcrowded homes. “Listening to lived experience is just not about tokenism, it’s about truth — allowing those that live in poverty to shape our response to it.”
Attentiveness to poverty and lived experience must also recognise the racial patterns of poverty, she argued. Her amendment didn’t accuse the Church of racism, but would strengthen the motion by giving an honest recognition of those whom poverty impacted most sharply, she said.
Mr Sheard believed that the purpose made within the amendment might have been raised in a speech concerning the major motion, but it surely did “sharpen our focus”. He wanted as much time as possible to be given to the major motion, especially as the talk had been adjourned last 12 months. He urged members to not “disappear down rabbit holes” in debates on the amendment.
The Revd Andrew Mumby (Southwark) agreed with Mr Sheard’s statement that these were not only numbers, but people, and had experience from members of his congregation who lived in poverty. He urged the Synod to hearken to those that had been systematically excluded. Statistics from the Runnymede Trust, he said, showed that Black and minority-ethnic people were greater than twice as prone to experience poverty. “White poverty is devastating, black poverty is devastating, but, if we’re to do an intensive job . . . we have now to listen fastidiously to the various causes of such tragic poverty.”
The Revd Alex Frost (Blackburn) spoke against the amendment. “Poverty is poverty,” he said. He emphasised that addressing poverty required motion, not only discussion. Telling people’s personal stories and capturing people’s imaginations could encourage change, he said.
The Revd Adrian Clarke (London) spoke of an occasion when he had visited a Black family in his parish who were living in poverty. He was surprised to have been offered a boiled egg, before realising that it was all that the family could afford. He pointed to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s research that had found that 40 per cent of individuals of global-majority heritage were in poverty. He urged the Synod to hold the amendment, and it did.
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesMark Sheard (Archbishops’ Council) introduces the motion
Emma Robarts (St Albans) moved an amendment calling for a rise in national funding to offer more clergy within the poorest parishes. The motion, because it was, she said, was “motherhood and apple pie”. But supporting church work in difficult places have to be the priority. Recent studies had shown that poverty, including poorly understood rural pockets, was widespread. Life expectancy within the poorest parishes may very well be as much as 15 years lower than average. The parish system meant that the Church was uniquely placed to supply support, but it surely had to take a position more in poorer parishes. “Parish ministry in deprived places must come first before all else.”
Mr Sheard appreciated the concentrate on the intersection between ill-health and disability and poverty, but had reservations. The Synod had already debated Lowest Income Communities (LInC) funding extensively within the session, and he urged members not to show inwards and obsess about its own wealth distribution. With that proviso, he was joyful for the talk to proceed on the amendment.
The Revd Lesley Jones (Durham) was glad for the Faith within the City report, although she said that she had been blind to it within the Nineteen Eighties when she had, within the midst of deep poverty, given up on God. There were many individuals today who felt abandoned by God in this fashion, she told members. “My plea is to let as many individuals know as possible that the Church of England cares, because God cares.”
Carl Hughes (Archbishops’ Council) said that the Synod couldn’t vote for this amendment since it was not practicable. LInC was distributed to dioceses from Commissioners’ funds by the Archbishops’ Council, and it was not “used” by the Synod because the amendment said. He welcomed the intent behind the amendment, but identified that LInC was not only spent on clergy either.
The amendment was defeated.
The Revd Chantal Noppen (Durham) brought an amendment on behalf of the Revd Robert Thompson (London), who was recovering from surgery and will not be present. She emphasised the importance of foodbanks that served multifaith communities. “When hardship deepens, neighbours help neighbours,” she said. The north-east, where she was based, was still “deeply fractured” by the lack of industries.
The Bishop of Leicester, the Rt Revd Martyn Snow, supported the amendment due to its emphasis on interfaith work. Despite its importance, this work was in crisis for several reasons, partly since the Church of England was not resourcing it properly, having only one officer within the national Church. Interfaith was not nearly dialogue, but about motion, Bishop Snow said. “If we’re serious about addressing poverty, we must work in partnership, and we must resource that work properly.”
The Revd Neil Robbie (Lichfield) said that the Synod was getting bogged down in debates about resource allocation, and he desired to inject more hope. “The biggest resource in our Church is just not what the Church Commissioners steward, but our people,” he said. In his deprived parish, there have been highly educated and senior managers who had chosen to maneuver to a poorer area to attempt to “dilute the concentration” of poverty. Jesus had left glory to live within the dirt; so couldn’t all Christians actively select to maneuver into the places where the poor feel neglected?
The amendment was carried.
The Archbishop of York described Faith within the City as a “defining moment” within the lifetime of the Church and the nation. As a young priest, he had been inspired by the report in the best way by which it identified poverty as a “moral challenge” for society and called on the Church to get better its “prophetic voice”. He praised the faithful, unseen work of Christian communities in tackling poverty, and urged the Synod to recommit itself to ending poverty in all its forms. New types of poverty were on the rise, together with deepening isolation. “This should remain a rallying call for the entire Church to talk up for the poorest communities — not only caring, but tirelessly advocating for change.”
The Revd Kina Robertshaw (Hereford) agreed that each one Christians were called to reflect God’s character by “defending the oppressed. Justice is just not an optional extra within the life of religion,” she said. But poverty was buttressed by complex systems, with layers of deprivation. It was also necessary to not assume that poverty was only an urban phenomenon, she continued, because it was present in her patch of rural, idyllic Shropshire.
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesThe Revd Rachel Webbley (Canterbury) moves an amendment
William Leeming (Youth Representatives) supported the motion and congratulated the achievement of Faith within the City, from which the Church was continuing to profit. He encouraged the Synod to be “brave”.
The Revd James McCluskey (Chelmsford) opposed the motion, as, he believed, the Synod couldn’t fulfil it properly. Unless there was agency in parishes, “the guarantees that we’re making, we’re offering a stone, when we’d like to supply bread,” he said.
Fiona MacMillian (London) said that a disproportionate variety of disabled people lived in poverty. They paid more for insurance, clothes, and transport, but funding didn’t make much of a difference, she said. Recent government cuts would drive them deeper into poverty, she said.
The amended motion was carried. It read:
That this Synod:
a) recognise and have fun the enduring impact of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Commission on Urban Priority Areas’ Faith within the City report on Christian social motion forty years after its publication, including through the work of Church Urban Fund;
b) affirm the worth and necessity of listening to people inside our congregations and in our wider communities who’re experiencing poverty, learning from these insights, and embedding these views and experiences within the forming of the body of Christ;
c) give thanks for the work undertaken by Christian communities across the country to witness to the love of God, serve and strengthen their communities, and construct partnerships towards a movement of affection, justice and mercy, together
d) affirm the importance of listening to individuals with lived experience of poverty, and recognise that poverty in England disproportionately affects some Black and minority ethnic communities, encouraging the Church to take account of those realities in its pastoral practice, mission, and public witness;
e) recommit to ending poverty in all its forms and manifestations, whilst asking questions of ourselves, our political, society and business leaders concerning the unjust structures and decisions which cause and exacerbate poverty, in keeping with the third and fourth marks of mission;
f) recognise that in lots of areas of high deprivation poverty is experienced inside multi-faith communities, and encourage the Church, where appropriate, to work ecumenically and in partnership with other faith groups in responding to poverty and supporting the wellbeing of local communities, while also encouraging the usage of person-centred language when speaking about poverty — equivalent to “people living in poverty” or “people experiencing poverty” — and discouraging the usage of objectifying terms equivalent to “the poor”, in order that poverty is known as a condition affecting people inside our shared communities slightly than as a defining identity.
Read more reports from the General Synod Digest here
