Cultivating Connections

Decisions regarding the application of knowledge are influenced by collective and individual factors associated with sociocultural context, familiarity with diverse knowledge and epistemologies, ways of being and knowing, and values. Science and religion are cultural authorities, variably acknowledged across different contexts as sources of credible knowledge and values that guide decision-making (O’Brien and Noy 2018). Religious and scientific institutions and their leaders operate within sociocultural systems, each possessing the potential to influence the framing of science and/or religion in decision-making (Ives and Kidwell 2019). Trust in science or religion is influenced by exposure to and trust in the leaders of each knowledge system, as well as intermediaries who engage across systems (O’Brien and Noy 2018; Younger-Khan, Weidmann, and Oswald 2024). Engagement of Anglican churches in applying science alongside faith and local and Indigenous knowledge for complex decisions demonstrates a perspective that science and faith can collaborate while still recognizing differences and maintaining each system’s integrity. Seen similarly in the work of entities such as the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (n.d.) and the Yale Forum on Religion and Ecology (2025), this approach fosters connections between science and religion. It is via such connections that social conversations around science evolve, moving engagement beyond information transfer and offering the potential for the co-creation of actions (Bucchi and Trench 2021). This focus on connectivity contrasts with the perspectives of science and religion as competing or conflicting philosophies that have previously dominated across various scientific and religious contexts (Catto et al. 2019; Perry and Leidenhag 2023). The active engagement of Anglicans across diverse cultural contexts in utilizing knowledge from science and faith to address complex social issues suggests that the potential to cultivate stronger connections between science and faith within the Communion may be significant.

The Lambeth Call: Science and Faith

The Anglican Communion Science Commission was established before the 2022 Lambeth Conference to promote collaboration between faith and science communities (Anglican Communion Office 2024). The draft Call and accompanying study guide were circulated for use in pre-conference online discussions (Lambeth Conference 2022a, 2022b). During the conference, the 650 attending bishops discussed the proposed Call in small cross-cultural groups and offered feedback. This was incorporated into the final document, a key section of which states: “We call on all Anglicans as they participate in mission to enter into theological dialogue with science, establishing how it is understood in different regions of the Communion, recognizing within it God-given resources for the life of faith and offering the wisdom of Anglican theological method (from Scripture, reason and tradition) to its work especially to the ethics of its use and unequal impacts across the world” (Lambeth Conference 2023, 21).

Dialogue: Exploring Frames of Reference

Dialogue is a culturally embedded relational process wherein meaning is explored through listening and speaking, enabling the potential for collective thinking to transpire, including considering and incorporating diverse perspectives into actions (Escobar 2011; Kirsch 2021). Interpretation of the nature and purpose of dialogue between theology and science has varied throughout history (Perry and Leidenhag 2023). While notions of conflict and integration have been narratives within this history, more recent thinking promotes dialogue for reciprocal interactions (Mortensen 2002). This perspective recognizes that a common pursuit of human flourishing can be advanced by engaging in dialogue across knowledge systems while maintaining the integrity of each system (O’Malley 2021).

The established practice in many parts of the Anglican Church of engagement between science, faith, and local and Indigenous knowledges to co-design transdisciplinary actions suggests that the purpose of the Science and Faith Call is not to initiate something new but to build on a culture of existing interaction. Therefore, Appreciative Inquiry, a process that seeks to facilitate development by focusing dialogue-based inquiry on a system’s strengths, possibilities, and successes (Grieten et al. 2018) is useful in this context. This approach encourages a positive perspective on development choices, thereby increasing the likelihood of experimentation with “what can be,” leading to the co-construction of positively framed options for action (Stavros, Godwin, and Cooperrider 2015).

Exploration of “what is occurring” is more challenging than it may appear. Existing understandings and practices reflect deeply embedded frames of reference that are often taken for granted. Frames of reference reflect worldviews based on assumptions and expectations involving values, beliefs, and concepts (Dirkx, Mezirow, and Cranton 2006). These form over time through experience and the development of understanding. They are influenced by assumptions about what is and what can be known, and the role of evidence in problem-solving (Mezirow 2011). Science and faith are complex systems of knowledge embedded in societies and, depending on positionality, into the lives of individuals and communities, sometimes as “taken for granted” frames of reference. For dialogue between faith and science to be productive, participants need to consider what they understand science and faith to be, alongside how these knowledge systems may interact with each other and with contextually relevant local, traditional, and Indigenous knowledge. Mezirow’s theory of Transformative Learning proposes that for humans to consider and potentially engage differing viewpoints, they must identify and unpack existing frames of reference to appreciate and consider other perspectives (Mezirow 2011). Through discourse and the sharing of narratives, transformative learning experiences challenge “taken for granted” frames of reference that may be associated with social and cultural norms (Kroth and Cranton 2014b). Often, this process is prompted by a disorienting dilemma, an experience that jolts or challenges thinking, enabling individuals or groups to identify deeply held frames of reference alongside differing perspectives (Kroth and Cranton 2014a).

Dialogue offers an entry point for transformative thinking and learning, particularly when the sharing of narratives supports exploration of deeply embedded and alternative frames of reference (Figure 1). In considering how to approach the development of deeper dialogue between faith and science, we proposed that actors from each knowledge system need opportunities to dialogue within their own system before entering into dialogue between systems.

Figure 1: Stages of Appreciative Inquiry and Transformative Learning interacting to catalyze growth.

Strengthening Engagement: Leading Change Starts with Understanding Current Contexts

Within the church, bishops will lead actions to progress the Faith and Science Call. Therefore, it is vital that they are provided with opportunities to consider the Call, explore perspectives on science and its interactions with faith, and determine culturally and contextually appropriate strategies to strengthen engagement between faith and science.

The Anglican Thought Leadership in Science Project (ATLAS) was established to facilitate opportunities for bishops to consider the Science and Faith Call and develop contextually relevant recommendations for progressing this Call. We propose that action-oriented deliberation, involving trusted leaders from faith and science, could contribute to strengthening the potential for interactions between understandings from faith and science to meaningfully progress complex societal challenges and promote human flourishing. However, before this can be tested, we propose that bishops and scientists needed opportunities to explore perspectives on the topic separately prior to engaging together. Our study aimed to identify whether workshops within regional contexts could enable bishops to deliberate on the topic of faith–science interactions as peers, subsequently formulating recommendations about ways to strengthen dialogue between faith and science.

This article reports on the design of the ATLAS deliberation process and its implementation with groups of bishops from Africa, the West Indies, and Oceania. It describes a novel process that integrates multiple qualitative methodologies within the design and considers whether this process was effective in engaging bishops to examine the potential for strengthening dialogue between faith and science. It then presents the main themes identified from the deliberations.

Consent to Participate

The study was approved by the University of Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee Ref#2633. All participants provided informed consent (online or written).

Context and Participants

Transdisciplinary research engages academic and nonacademic partners representing multiple areas of expertise in a community of practice to cocreate scientifically valid, socially relevant, and actionable research (Schmidt et al. 2020). The team comprised individuals with expertise in Anglican and scientific leadership, theology, and natural and social sciences from Africa, Oceania, the West Indies, and the United Kingdom. The coordinating bishop(s) for each workshop extended invitations across their regions. Invitations included costs associated with air travel (where required), meals, and accommodation. A preference for geographic diversity was encouraged. A participant count ranging from nine to twenty was aimed for, thereby facilitating the formation of no fewer than three groups of three and no more than four groups of five. Lead times between invitations and workshops were three months in Africa, seven months in Oceania, and twelve months in the West Indies.

Design: Pilot Testing

A condensed pilot workshop was conducted in April 2023 with clergy from the Diocese of Auckland, New Zealand, to evaluate the proposed deliberation content and format. Eighteen clergy, representing diversity in ministry experience, age, gender, and ethnicity, participated. The five-hour program tested condensed versions of the first four workshop sessions, examined the data collection model, explored interest in the Call’s concepts, and sought feedback on content and process. Data collection included individual reflections recorded on sticky notes, group-developed headline themes, and notes taken by scribes at each table. Key learnings informed the design of the three-day workshops that were contextually adapted for use in Africa, Oceania, and the West Indies.

Deliberation Process

The three-day in-person workshops were held in sites that enabled communal living, promoting relationship building and engagement. Participants received an introduction and program overview in advance, including informed consent information. For Oceania and the West Indies, this included an interactive website accessible to bishops and facilitators. These websites contained session information, provided a repository for data images, and created a space for questions and post-workshop discussions. The West Indies website was accompanied by a hard-copy workbook.

Two experienced facilitators, one of whom was local, guided each workshop, maintaining focus and timing. Bishops were organized into tables of three to six people. Each table was supported by a host whose role was to ensure the discussion remained focused and a scribe for notetaking (White 2022). Hosts and scribes were experienced in qualitative research, journalism, or the Anglican Church. In Oceania and the West Indies, all hosts and scribes were local. In Africa, an unplanned change led to four observers from the United Kingdom assuming host (n=3) and scribe (n=1) roles. Training for facilitators, hosts, and scribes included theoretical and practical considerations.

Initiated with a gathering event on the evening of day zero, workshops comprised ten sessions spread across the following three days, with a rest period built into the afternoon of day two (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Overview of the deliberation process.

The first six sessions were designed to examine existing experiences and perceptions. Sessions one and two explored experiences of interactions between faith and science, followed by connections with science and perceptions of science’s role in society. These sessions were intentionally minimally scripted, exploring existing frames of reference before any educational input about science.

Typical of deliberation design, session three was structured as “educational input.” This offered participants the opportunity to consider the concept of knowledge systems, specifically their ontology, epistemology, and how their claims derive legitimacy. Participants also heard from scientists about their perceptions of science and its role in society. Combined, sessions one through three offered the potential to trigger disorienting dilemmas regarding perceptions about science. Pilot feedback (2023) indicated that this session should include perspectives from church and Indigenous leaders in addition to scientists. In Africa, this involved a prerecorded conversation between science leaders, followed by a discussion with church leaders. In Oceania and the West Indies, a panel discussion with leaders from science, church, and Indigenous communities explored the nature of different knowledge systems and their roles in society. Day one concluded with bishops sharing experiences as church leaders during COVID-19, reflecting on engagement with science via a common case example (session four).

Day two began with reflections to identify topics requiring further discussion (session five), followed by the sharing of in-depth exemplars of current faith–science interactions (session six) to conclude the exploration of “what is.” The transition from “reflect/discover” to the “dream” phase occurred through an exercise that identified strengths and priorities and envisioned pathways forward (session seven). A half-day rest followed, allowing for personal or informal reflection and conversation.

Day three continued the “dream and design” phase of appreciative inquiry. Initial reflections (session eight) focused on reviewing the envisioning from session seven. Sessions nine and ten focused on developing and refining recommendations to advance the Call.

A structured cycle of reflection-discussion-reflection was used to frame the table-based deliberations and rotations (Figure 3). Sessions commenced with personal reflections on the focus question, recorded on individually coded green sticky notes. Notes were contributed to idea boards (large sheets of paper) on each table. Hosts then facilitated discussions, initiating these via the note-based contributions. After approximately fifteen minutes, the facilitator prompted tables to identify headlines and record these on the idea boards using marker-pens color-coded by group. Approximately five minutes later, groups were instructed to return to personal reflections using individually coded pink sticky notes. Yellow-colored coded notes were available for participants to record thoughts or questions arising at any time. Following the initial reflection-discussion-reflection cycle, groups rotated, leaving the host and scribe in place. On arrival at a new table, groups reviewed the idea board, and the host initiated a discussion on how this compared to the incoming group’s thinking. Groups considered and commented on or added to the existing headlines. Following three rotations, groups returned to their original table to reflect on the perspectives added by other groups to their original thinking and make final adjustments to their boards. The cyclical process of rotations fosters an environment conducive to participant contributions and promotes critical reflection on diverse perspectives (Löhr, Weinhardt, and Sieber 2020). It also aligns with several modes of theological reflection familiar to bishops (Graham 2022).

Figure 3: Cycle of reflection, discussion, and review with table rotations, adapted from Brown and Issacs (2005).

Data Collection

Data collection methods included:

• individually coded colored sticky notes collecting pre-(green) and post-(pink) discussion reflections and comments (yellow)

• group-coded idea boards with headlines/themes

• scribe notes from table and whole-room discussions

• additional sources such as meeting notes, facilitator notes, program plans, and reflections or clarifications contributed by participants prior, within, or after the workshops.

Analysis

Idea boards were photographed after each session. Participant notes were reviewed and transcribed, with clarification sought where necessary. Scribe notes were reviewed and confirmed. Template analysis (King and Brooks 2018) was employed to probe the data. This is a flexible style of thematic analysis that utilizes a hierarchical coding template to organize and interpret extensive textual data. Template analysis was chosen as it supports the use of a priori themes to develop an initial coding template, allowing participant-generated themes to be recognized alongside themes informed by the study’s research questions and questions that framed the deliberation sessions. After a familiarization and preliminary coding stage by groups of researchers from each geographic region, the initial template was developed on a subset of the overall data. This was iteratively applied to additional data and further modified as required. The final template with higher-order (broad) and lower-order (specific) codes was then used to review and code the full dataset. Within template analysis, there remains the flexibility to modify codes as the analysis proceeds. NVivo 14 was used to support the thematic analysis process by enabling the systematic coding of data, the development of a coding template, and the visualization of patterns across the dataset. The potential for theme conceptualization to be influenced by researcher positionality, including relationship to place and the cultural context of workshops and narratives, is significant (Holmes 2020; Jadallah 2025). Recognizing this, data from each workshop were reviewed and analyzed by groups, including region-specific team members, during the initial and subsequent coding processes. Further, an independent researcher who did not participate in the workshops reviewed and analyzed all data, and a second independent researcher compared the analyses across the groups. Finally, the theme summaries were taken to representative groups of participating bishops for collective sense-making to review themes and reflect on the trustworthiness of the data analysis.

Participant Characteristics

Thirty-seven bishops from nine provinces and thirty-four dioceses accepted invitations (Figure 4). Of these, one from each of Melanesia and Tanzania accepted invitations but were unable to attend. An alternative representative attended from Tanzania. Most participating bishops were male, reflecting the gender imbalance of these roles globally. All had undergraduate and most had postgraduate qualifications in theology and/or ministry with ten or more years of leadership experience. From Oceania, four bishops held undergraduate, and a further three postgraduate, science qualifications and related work experience.

Figure 4: ATLAS deliberation workshops by location showing attendee distribution across each region.

In Africa, two additional groups participated, comprising scientists (n = 4) and theologians or clergy (n = 5). These participants were clustered as separate groups but interacted with bishops via table rotations and whole-room discussions. Based on recommendations from the 2023 pilot testing and observations during the workshop in Africa, data from these groups have not been utilized in this article. During pilot testing, it was observed that where clergy had postgraduate science training or where scientists joined a table discussion, the flow of conversations altered. Input from nonscience-trained participants reduced, along with the diversity of perspectives and openness to express uncertainty. The 2023 pilot-testing review team noted the importance of bishops being able to deliberate as peers. The exploration of prior experience with science in session two was identified as important for enabling table hosts to manage the potential impacts of a diversity of science-related experience observed during pilot testing. These observations and recommendations were discussed in regional planning meetings and during table-host training. The recommendation for bishops to deliberate as peers was confirmed by the planning teams in the West Indies and Oceania and identified as important by participating bishops. “What I appreciated most was that we could meet just as bishops to talk about this” (West Indies). “Just having bishops at the table created a safe space for exploration of topics and issues” (Oceania).

Major Themes Emerging from the Deliberations

Six themes emerged across the deliberations examining faith–science interactions and considering recommendations for strengthening dialogue: (1) recognition of existing interactions between faith and science in the context of Anglican churches; (2) the role of engagement between church and scientific communities in addressing complex challenges; (3) the importance of respecting and integrating perspectives from Indigenous, traditional, and local knowledge systems alongside faith and science; (4) the importance of building trust between science and faith; (5) the need for ongoing dialogue to strengthen relationships between church and scientific communities; (6) the importance of fostering holistic and ethically grounded relationships between faith and science that are inclusive of marginalized voices. All quotes reported in the findings represent the voice of participating bishops. As we are reporting on ideas emerging from collective deliberation, we have associated each quote with a region rather than an individual.

Theme 1: Existing Faith–Science Interactions

It is important that overall findings are contextualized within participants lived experiences of faith–science interactions. These were explored in sessions one, four, and six. While variable within and across regions, all bishops identified examples of faith–science interactions pertinent to their ministry. These demonstrated the integration of scientific evidence or perspectives into preaching, pastoral care, leadership, and social action within ministry, with many illustrating contributions to science communication. “The bottom line is that [during the pandemic] the Church and Church leaders were science communicators” (Africa).

Figure 4 provides an overview of reported interactions. Many bishops reflected that these were more extensive than they may have previously realized. Many extend beyond faith and science to include engagement with local, traditional, and Indigenous knowledge, and most link to complex societal issues. The normative nature of such interactions was highlighted by reflections such as this one from a bishop in Oceania on the role of science in society: “[W]e swim in science-background—different worldviews playing in together.” However, it was also noted that while science strongly influences societal decision-making, conscious recognition of that influence may vary and be contextually mediated within the church. In all three regions, there was recognition that for some people, the relationship between faith and science can be challenging. However, it was also noted that the application of reason has always been a strong component in the way Anglicans form their faith in relation to the world. Given the depth and volume of evidence reported from sessions one, four, and six, these data will be explored in detail in further publications.

Figure 5: Overview of themes under which existing faith–science interactions were reported during session six, Local Case Explorations.

Theme 2: Faith–Science Interactions and Complex Challenges

Bishops discussed the idea that despite the differences between faith and science, both seek to understand the world and promote human flourishing. They identified motivational connections with elements within the Marks of Mission of the Anglican Communion, such as responding to human need, transforming unjust societal structures, and striving to safeguard the integrity of creation (Anglican Communion Office 2025c). These drivers were reflected in the reported examples of interactions between faith and science. While the range of examples was extensive, most connected to complex challenges linked to social and planetary justice and human flourishing, often with an emphasis on ethics.

Bishops identified that the Anglican Church frequently takes on the role of intermediary in relation to the application of science in complex issues or challenges. COVID-19 was a good example of this, where church leaders found themselves acting as science communicators. “During the pandemic, we were educating about COVID-19 and encouraging the observation of protocols as a way to promote health and safety” (West Indies).

A bishop from Oceania pointed out that developing understanding of a particular challenge from the perspective of science as well as faith was valuable when encouraging community engagement. “Understanding the benefits of why we need to do the research [is important]. The better we can communicate it, and our community leaders can advocate and transfer knowledge to communities.”

Bishops also discussed times when this role of intermediary was linked to challenging the use of science where the potential for negative consequences existed for local communities. Interestingly, in all three regions, the application of genetically modified seed crops was used to exemplify this.

Theme 3: Valuing All Knowledge Systems

A recurring theme that accompanied discussions of complex societal challenges was the importance of respecting and integrating perspectives from Indigenous, traditional, and local knowledge systems alongside those from faith and science. This was evident in examples of existing faith–science interactions across the regions. Some examples from Oceania not only integrated Indigenous, traditional, and local knowledge in actions but also advocated for this at structural levels.

Bishops across all regions stressed that meaningful dialogue must consider the cultural, political, and historical contexts in which knowledge is both produced and applied. Understanding these broader influences, they argued, is essential for developing more holistic and inclusive approaches to complex global challenges. “Any dialogue between faith and science will take place within a cultural and political context and therefore must also include the voice of Indigenous and other knowledge systems in order to have effective outcomes” (Oceania).

Bishops acknowledged that Indigenous knowledge, deeply rooted in local ecosystems and cultural traditions, offers valuable insights that can complement contemporary scientific approaches. African bishops highlighted this point with a striking example, underscoring that traditional practices emerging from observational evidence can have strong parallels to scientific evidence. “Indigenous knowledge is also important—science enhances Indigenous knowledge. There are days when people don’t fish to give the sea a rest. It’s a ‘day of rest’–it’s also science” (Africa).

The reflection of a bishop from Africa that “Indigenous epistemology integrates faith, science, and traditional knowledge” reinforces the interconnected nature of these different ways of knowing and the importance of this interaction. “Understanding the interplay between faith, science, and traditional/community knowledge is fundamental for designing Anglican thought leadership in science projects that are culturally sensitive, contextually relevant, and capable of fostering positive change in African communities” (Africa). This was reiterated in recommendations emerging from the West Indies and Oceania that emphasized the importance of developing educational resources that explore the relationship between faith, science, Indigenous, local, and traditional knowledge systems.

Many bishops emphasized that these different knowledge systems or ways of knowing should not be viewed as hierarchical but instead recognized as complementary and mutually enriching. Bishops from the West Indies encouraged this collaborative approach, calling for efforts to “bring all knowledge systems (Indigenous, science, faith) into the same space and into creative interaction with each other.” This was reflected in their final recommendations: “Foster dialogue with stakeholders, especially scientists and Indigenous leaders, to enhance appreciation of the role of Indigenous, local, and traditional knowledge systems alongside faith and science for the enhancement of life and the common good” (Recommendation 8, West Indies).

Theme 4: Trust and Communication

The need to build trusted relationships between the church and scientific communities was seen as a key requirement for effective collaboration, particularly in communities where historical experiences such as those related to the introduction of genetically modified seed crops have led to skepticism toward the motivations of some scientific institutions.

Bishops acknowledged that trust is shaped by a complex mix of cultural perceptions, world views, and past experiences (particularly those associated with slavery and colonization), all of which influence how scientific endeavors are received. Discussions emphasized that trust is fostered through active engagement, clear and contextually relevant communication, and respectful listening, acknowledging both differences and shared goals. As bishops from the West Indies expressed, “Challenge: Greater appreciation and understanding of the value of science and faith. Will the dialogue include truth-telling? Will there be reconciliation or greater understanding and more appreciation between the two?” Their comments underscored the importance of honest engagement that does not shy away from historical tensions.

Bishops from Africa pointed out that “[s]ome faith communities do not fully trust science; how would they be made to understand that science complements their ministry and thus needs to work in harmony?” They also acknowledged that “[i]gnorance and down-playing traditional knowledge among local communities hinders trust of science,” reinforcing the need for respectful engagement across diverse knowledge systems. The need to understand contextual complexities when engaging communities was seen as a priority. “Understanding the dynamics between faith, science, and traditional knowledge enables Anglican thought leaders to communicate their ideas and initiatives in ways that resonate with the local population” (Africa).

Bishops in Oceania reflected that across their region, the openness of churches to engagement with science appears to be associated with communities where there is high societal trust in science. They reflected that “[t]rust is critical for such discussions; need time to build trust” and recommended that in communities where advances in science had led to negative or unintended consequences, intentional actions to enable transparency and build trust are required.

Theme 5: Dialogue and Relationship Building

Identification of the importance of ongoing dialogue to strengthen relationships and build trust between Church and scientific communities was common to all three deliberations. Bishops identified that when dialogue created the potential to explore differences and synergies, this opened up opportunities for collective actions. They reflected that for dialogue to be effective, it must move beyond silos and create opportunities for meaningful engagement. As bishops from the West Indies stated, “Faith and science must each allow the other to cross over into the other’s territory to create a richer and broader discussion.” Many saw this kind of cross-fertilization as key to fostering deeper conversations that respect different ways of knowing while still seeking meaning. One bishop from Oceania cautioned, however, “I think we need to be careful that the church doesn’t only talk to Christian scientists but we have a genuine dialogue with those outside of the church, otherwise we are just talking to ourselves.” Bishops from Africa echoed the importance of this approach, noting that “[t]his understanding can help bridge potential gaps in comprehension and create a more meaningful dialogue around science and faith.” Their comments reinforced the idea that developing a shared understanding of different perspectives is critical for productive dialogue and, eventually, progressive collective action.

Reflecting on lessons from COVID-19, bishops emphasized the importance of having long-term institutional relationships rather than relying on personal connections. This is reflected in Recommendation 2A from Oceania: “Address the opportunities and challenges associated with dialogue arising from individual contacts and thus develop sustainable institutional relationships.”

The idea of structured networks was also raised frequently. Bishops from Africa suggested the establishment of regional panels of experts to help build up interactions between faith and science. This sat alongside a recommendation for resourcing that could “equip church leaders with the knowledge and tools necessary to discuss and promote faith and science” (Recommendation 6, Africa).

Bishops across all three regions recommended that connections be multigenerational, seeing this as key to ensuring partnerships could evolve over time, withstand leadership changes, and remain effective in responding to new challenges. The need for wide-reaching resources supporting the exploration of interactions between knowledge systems to foster dialogue and relationship building was evident. In addition to confirmation of the need for multigenerational reach, bishops emphasized the need for reach to include “parishes and grass-roots ministry, schools, theological colleges, and academic institutions, inclusive of but not limited to sciences and humanities” (Oceania). The emphasis of this resourcing was focused on supporting the exploration of the nature of different knowledge systems to foster “dialogue that promotes engagement across knowledge systems” (West Indies). Bishops in Oceania noted that this should involve “encouraging robust epistemological awareness that supports development of understanding of the nature of science and other ways of knowing” (Oceania).

Theme 6: Inclusivity

Beyond the sociocultural, political, and geographic diversity within and between the three regions engaged in this study sits a collective understanding of the impacts of colonization histories (past and present) on the communities in which the participating bishops live and work. This was reflected on multiple occasions during the deliberations, where the need for the application of decolonial constructs in advancing work associated with the Call was emphasized. “Beware of the ways in which things like the Call can look like another form of colonization, e.g., in the supremacy of frameworks. Language can convey an invitation to participate/collaborate or an imposition of certain ways of thinking/framing things. Genuine co-design, not colonization is important” (Oceania).

Associated with this was an acknowledgment of the importance of fostering holistic and ethically grounded relationships between faith and science that are inclusive of marginalized voices. Bishops stressed that leadership should reflect the lived experiences of those most affected by global challenges and that codesign with communities in which actions are intended is essential.

Additionally, discussions associated with inclusivity identified the need to engage marginalized and easily forgotten voices within society, multigenerational perspectives, viewpoints that cross language divides, and perspectives from faith traditions beyond Anglicanism and Christianity.