World-Shaped Mission. Janice Price

at Whitby that the concept of partnership began to take shape. Some of the key issues concerned the relationship of the younger and older churches and how and when autonomy in governance could be given to the younger churches. This was heightened by the early independence movements particularly in India. Canon Max Warren, then General Secretary of the Church Missionary Society, attended the Whitby meeting where he led the worship and where it is likely that discussions contributed to his thinking about partnership which found expression in his 1955 book entitled Partnership. This short but important book has had greater effect on partnership thinking than any official church report and is widely acknowledged as a formative text. Attention will be given to it in the theological section of this chapter.

      2.6 In Anglican thinking partnership emerged at the 1963 Third Congress of the Anglican Communion held in Toronto. This Congress adopted the highly significant report ‘Mutual Responsibility and Interdependence’ (MRI) which led to the establishment of the early Companion Links across the Communion. The Missio document Patterns of International Mission Structures in the Anglican Communion describes this process,

      ‘Since 1963 the Anglican Communion has initiated two Communion-wide programmes to encourage mutual participation and support in the mission of the church – Mutual Responsibility and Interdependence (MRI) and Partners in Mission (PIM).

      The Communion as a whole began its journey from paternalism to partnership in its mission relations in the 1960s. In 1963, just prior to the Anglican Congress in Toronto, the Primates and Metropolitans of the Communion issued a ‘manifesto’ entitled Mutual Responsibility and Interdependence in the Body of Christ – MRI. Their proposal was essentially to look at needs (for people, finance, skills and infrastructure) across the Communion and to gather and distribute resources to meet those needs. It was a challenge to break out of the donor/recipient mindset of the colonial era and move into new relationships of equality and mutuality, not just in financial sharing but in personnel and other aspects of Christian discipleship. A call was made for a fund of five million pounds to assist the new provinces. A priority was theological education to encourage self-reliance in leadership. MRI increased awareness of the Communion, the need for partnership, and the principles on which it should be based. The final part of the manifesto reads as follows:

      We are aware that such a programme as we propose, if it is seen in its true size and accepted, will mean the death of much that is familiar about our churches now. It will mean radical change in our priorities – even leading us to share with others as much as we spend on ourselves. It means the death of old isolations and inherited attitudes. It means a willingness to forgo many desirable things, in every church.

      In substance what we are really asking is the rebirth of the Anglican Communion, which means the death of many old things but – infinitely more – the birth of entirely new relationships. We regard this as the essential task before the churches of the Anglican Communion now.30

      2.7 The movement from ‘paternalism to partnership’ is indicative of the contemporary political situation where the rejection of colonial government and structures gave rise to new forms of indigenous government. The Anglican Communion had spread with the presence of British influence in its various forms and had been part of British exports abroad. In the light of this new ways of understanding relationships between churches needed to be explored.’

      2.8 Apart from the development of the Companion Links, the Mutual Responsibility and Interdependence document gave rise to the Communion-wide process Partners in Mission. The purpose of PIM was to engage the churches of the Communion in a process of setting its mission priorities in which process they would be accompanied by partner churches selected by the host church. The Church of England took part in this process in 1981. The effect of the PIM Consultation upon the Church of England was marginal. The process included a debate in General Synod where Standing Orders were suspended and while many appreciative comments were made on the contributions of the external partners, there was no real process established for the integration of the ideas generated to become part of the lifeblood of the Church of England. The General Synod debate reveals that, at times, the process was difficult and painful for those from the Church of England31 and the central message of the external partners was that it lacked a vitality of vision for the gospel. Salient points were also raised about the lack of partnership working between the voluntary agencies and the central structures of the Church of England and about the number of voluntary agencies working in world mission though the newly established Partnership for World Mission was applauded by the external partners as a necessary and welcome development. Reading the General Synod debate 29 years later showed its prophetic nature. Many of the things regarding the need for mission to form the life of the Church of England have, or are being, fulfilled. However, there seems to be little evidence of a process to assess and receive what was brought to the Church of England from its external partners. As Philip Groves concludes on the PIM process as a whole,

      ‘there was as clear a distinction between giving and receiving churches at the end of the process as at the beginning. The giving churches were offered the chance to receive but were unable or unwilling to do so. The churches regarded as receiving had little opportunity to offer themselves to the younger churches and the giving church did not value their resources.’32

      2.9 In effect the PIM process did not impact the Church of England to any significant degree and an opportunity was missed. The Revd Canon Humphrey Taylor, then General Secretary of USPG, described the process at the 1986 Mission Agencies Conference,

      ‘The Church of England still has no formal mechanism whereby General Synod members who have represented it at PIM Consultations elsewhere can report back to it, let alone allowing external partners to contribute to its own deliberations … After the external partners, politely heard or even treated like oracles, have departed, the Church carries on its business much as it did before.’33

      2.10 Since 1986 mechanisms have been put in place for a stronger relationship between the Mission Agencies and the central structures of the Church of England. Just prior to the PIM process in 1981 came the establishment of Partnership for World Mission (PWM) in 1978 which provided such a loose structure established in line with the Partners in Mission process. The Working Party which recommended the establishment of PWM said,

      ‘For the first time in the area of world mission, which includes the church in England as much as the church in other lands, there would exist a specific co-ordinating organ for mission to which all the parties involve can relate in a way which visibly demonstrates the Church of England’s determination to play her share in the world task.’34

      2.11 Such a body as PWM was designed to bridge the gap between the central structures and the Mission Agencies and, it was hoped, would bring world mission closer to the central decision-making structures. It was hoped that through PWM there would be a strengthening of relationships and partnership between the synodical structure including the House of Bishops, the Mission Agencies and the dioceses. Such partnership was necessary at home as well as between partner churches in the world church.

      2.12 Partnership in World Mission has continued to exercise these functions under four secretaries and now under the World Mission Policy Adviser as it faces another period of transition and development. One of the most significant events of its life was the signing of the Covenant for Common Mission and Co-operation by all the General Secretaries of the Mission Agencies in 2003. The governing body of PWM is now the World Mission and Anglican Communion Panel which brings together representatives of the Mission Agencies, the Companion Links, representatives of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Anglican Consultative Council, the network of Diocesan Development Advisers and the General Synod under an Episcopal Chair appointed by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York. The Panel takes responsibility through the Secretary of PWM for the Annual World Mission Conference. Beginning its life as a Diocesan Companion Links Conference, it is now emerging as the central point at which all the various components of the Church of England’s relationships in world mission come together. An essential part of that process is hearing and receiving from our partners from the global church.

      2.13 Apart from Partners in Mission the other Communion-wide initiative was the Decade of Evangelism called for by the 1998 Lambeth Conference following an initiative of His Holiness John Paul II. While the Decade had many detractors,