Multi-, Poly-, Inter-culturality: Catalysts for talanoa
In 2025, the Uniting Church in Australia will mark several milestones that are homed in the NSW and ACT Synod.
In 2025, the Uniting Church in Australia will mark several milestones that are homed in the NSW and ACT Synod. Among these are 50 years since the establishment of United Theological College (UTC, 1975), 40 years since the ‘We are a multicultural church’ declaration of the 4th Assembly (Sydney, 1985), and 20 years since the publication of Uniting in Worship 2 (UiW2, 2005).
There are other UCA milestones, but i call attention to these because they highlight the developing awareness of the UCA of its cultural dynamics – that it is a body in which cultures meet, engage, multiply, and flee from. I prefer ‘culturality’ (rather than ‘culturalism’) for these dynamics, and many terms have been used to qualify the notion of culturality referenced. For this catalyst reflection, i ruminate around three of those qualifications.
Multiculturality
The notion of culturality in the ‘We are a multicultural church’ declaration may be defined along two lines:
- First, church cultures: the declaration affirms that the UCA is the union of three church cultures (read: traditions, practices, teachings, theologies) – Congregational, Methodist, and Presbyterian.
- Second, ethnic cultures: the declaration affirms that the membership of the UCA is made up of ‘Christians of ma[n]y cultures and ethnic origins’ (paragraph 2) who come from and with various customs, values, preferences, and commitments.
The declaration prioritises the indigenous peoples—First Nations, First Peoples—of the cluster of islands now known as Australia, and their cultures. The declaration makes room also for folx and cultures that have migrated from other (is)lands across the seas (aka Second Peoples).
The UCA is multicultural because it consists of many cultures. Under the surface, as far as i can tell from its wording, the declaration assumes First Peoples and Second Peoples to be straightforward and monocultural.
Polyculturality
I use ‘polyculturality’ to call attention to the fact that each ethnic culture is made up of many (poly) cultures. No ethnic culture is monocultural (one culture). This view challenges the politics of nationalism – the expectation that a group of islands share the same culture, and so they may be boxed up as one nation, one identity, one culture.
The group of islands now known as Fiji, for instance, is made up of many cultures. Before the Chinese, British, and Indians came or were brought, there were already poly cultures in the so-called Fiji group.
Vanua Levu (which means big/great land or people) and Viti Levu (which means big/great east or sunrise) are the larger islands in this group, and there are many cultures in both islands depending on location. Coastal (saltwater) and in-land (freshwater) people have different cultures, compared to settlements at the sunrise and sunset sides of the islands. Both of these larger islands are polycultural.
Bau and Kadavu are smaller islands in this group, and they too have rich heritage and many cultures. Though smaller, Bau and Kadavu add to the polyculturality of the group of islands now known as Fiji.
The cluster of islands now known as Australia is larger – in terms of land, languages, and indigenous cultures – than the so-called Fiji group. This is to say that polyculturality is undeniable with respect to the clusters of islands now known as Australia.
The same argument applies to church cultures. No church culture – whether Methodist, Presbyterian, or Congregational – is monocultural. This makes the UCA a hotbed for polyculturality.
Interculturality
I use ‘interculturality’ to point to the fact that each culture (which is already polycultural) interweaves both local and non-local cultural elements. No culture is untouched by foreign influences.
For example: the cultures in/of the island of Lomoloma, in the so-called Fiji group, infuses cultural elements from the so-called Tonga group, and vice versa. Islands may be far from one another, but no island is culturally isolated.
Interculturality both acknowledges cultural appropriation (we borrow and share cultures) and challenges the tendency to be exclusivist (that something is unique only to one culture) and supremacist (that the culture in/of one island represents the true culture of the group).
So what?
This reflection aims to invite talanoa (see here) on the cultural dynamics of the Synod and UCA, which are (not?) embodied in institutions of theological education (such as UTC) and ways of worship (as imagined in UiW2). I will come back to the latter, but here invite you to reflect on and talanoa around these questions:
- What are other ways to describe our cultural dynamics?
- What concerns from your dynamic cultural setting have been engaged or irritated by this reflection?