AUDIO
 |
Phillip Jensen speaks on Anger as part of a series on emotions in the Christian life, delivered at the Australia Day Convention 2010
|
I think its time to redraw Parish Boundaries.
The Diocese is currently being carved up to create Mission Areas. These Mission Areas are groupings of existing parishes.
What would happen though, if you re-drew parish boundaries on the basis of mission?
- you could change boundaries to better reflect areas that churches connect with in mission. Plenty of boundaries were drawn before the motor car - major roads now create physical and mental barriers that boundaries may not reflect
- you could create new parishes around newly planted churches
- you could amalgamate neighbouring parishes where it would be helpful for mission
- you could identify areas in exisiting parishes that weren’t being reached & carve them off to create a new ‘Mission Parish’. Priority could then be given to think about who could connect with the people in these areas.
- you could create two parishes out of one to help foster church planting and better connections with the whole community.
- you could have some churches without parish boundaries - ethnic churches that draw from further, large regional churches etc
The problem of course, is who the ‘you’ is in the examples above. No-one would trust ‘the Diocese’ to do this. Wouldn’t this be exactly the kind of centralism that every right thinking rector would ignore?
Why not then make it vountary? Give each Parish 6 months to talk to its neighbouring parishes and say where lines should be re-drawn for the sake of mission. If you can’t agree then the lines stay where they are.
Let me give you a quick example of how it might work around Roseville East:
- We could split the existing Parish into two to better reach Castle Cove. We could call Al Stewart and say - we have an empty building & rectory - can you help us find a church planter? They’d then have a parish to evangelise and we’d need to give people to that task.
- we’d talk to Chatswood about extending our boundary to the railway line or the highway rather than the arbitrary boundary that snakes through the suburb at the moment. We’d want to figure out though who & how the residential high rise and business areas would be reached. Their Chinese ministry may be better placed to do that.
- we’d talk to Roseville about the church they’ve planted in the school in our Parish. Do we keep that overlapping and messy or should a new Parish be created around the school and its catchment area?
- We’d talk to Willoughby East, Willoughby, and Northbridge about the difficulties of reaching the Middle Harbour Peninsula Suburbs. Should we work together to better reach this area? Should this involve some kind of redrawing boundaries or amalgamation or the creation of a new Parish?
- there are lots of churches on the boundaries of Chatswood but no-one church is operating inside the Chatswood CBD. Should we think of ways to work together to create a regional church bigger than any local parish? Could this happen without property?
Those would be great conversations to have. They’d open our eyes to the mission field around us. We’d pray together for the lost and think about how we can do mission together. Whether the boundaries were redrawn may not matter too much. What does matter is doing what we can to have a gospel strategy for the people around us.
Agreed, but do we trust each other to do this?
If not. The Mission Areas are just laying another level of parochialism on an already constipated system. Lets hope its the former that comes to pass!
Why not do what Michael suggests. Parishes are just a tool than can be bad and can be good. In the good: they imply a link between a church and a local community, give the church focus in mission, and can help different churches allocate resources better to reach communities. It also reminds us of the need for church to reach the whole society, not just whichever hip and trendy group, or easy group there is.
When done badly, sometimes parts of Sydney are well evangelised, while other parts are not. While at times church planting ideas may be questioned by a local parish minister, even if just because they could do with some engagement and encouragement, I have yet to meet an Anglican minister who would refuse to evangelise someone because they live in someone else's area. I have also met lots of Godly men committed to reaching their parish for Christ, in partnership with those working for the same outcome in neighbouring parishes.
Michael, is there anything stopping you, the Bishop (I guess he might sign off on it) and the local rectors giving this a go? I'm sure that if it was approached properly, it would work out. Then you could give feedback on here, to get things moving in other areas where it may be needed.
Let's see our Mission field.
I think changes like this go through regional council at the moment. So yes, it can be done.
I wouldn't throw out the parochial baby with the bathwater. Yes, rectorial rectors may have wrongly seen it as a grant of monopoly franchise. But thats not really such a big issue now is it?
One of the great things the parish system does is give a sense of responsibility for all those in the parish. Connect 09 has reinforced that and people have said ‘the parish is back’. A sense of responsibility doesn’t necessarily mean the parish church is the best way to minister to the people there but it does put the onus on Christians to reach those living in the area.
The second strength is that it means the entire city is covered – we don’t abandon suburbs because the ministry is difficult. The parish system means you keep trying even in hard areas.
Denominations with parish structures are going to try and cover the ground, including the tough parts. As we do that we’ve got to acknowledge the cost involved, while also putting resources into places that will grow more quickly.
Yet even where there is no real likelihood of changing parish boundaries it could be a very good exercise to do. The 'large' churches that have half a dozen suburbs in their parish might be challenged that they aren't perhaps doing as well as they think. Why wouldn't you create several new parishes out of one (and distribute resources appropriately).
I think this also raises the issue of what kind of parishes we desire. Do we really expect all parishes to look alike (like what - regional churches or smaller local churches?) If not, what relationships do we aspire to between parishes?
there are so many sub cultures within that I believe we really work our parishes at this level and often at the exclusion of the other cultures be they ethnic of some other type of subset. The system is flawed in that we do not take seriously reaching the parish we actually make choices about which sub set we will work towards. These subsets are not necessarily physical boundaries defined therefore I say lets throw out the baby and the bath water a minister to the concetions which we have in our multi church systems
If you click on your name & see the info on you, you are the senior minister of a very flexible or growing parish. Since when was Bomaderry in Western Sydney? Now that is re-drawing parish boundaries to fit in with some sub-cultures!
I disagree with your view that parishes represent monocultures. I think that in the best case a 'parish' is a mission centre and the coordinating / administrative heart of a group of congregations / churches. These congregations don't all have to represent the same culture - I think of a number of places with a variety of mono & multi-cultural congregations (Parramatta, Carlingford and UNSW spring to mind). In some cases there may be reasons to spin some of the congregations off to form new 'parochial units', but if the individual congregations can remain under a common leadership and maintain a shared vision, I would think there would be a lot of value in the synergy.
I recognise that we sometimes don't do a good job of reaching the varied sub-cultures within our 'parish', but sometimes parishes that have a desire to do so genuinely don't have the human or financial resources to do this. Perhaps that is where our 'fellowhip of churches' could come in to help to find those resources.
What counts is there being an unashamed outward focus for our mission together.
The 10% target did that. When the Diocesan Mission started I was at Carlingford. I remember the lights turning on for one of our leaders there who was gripped by the 10% target. Instead of looking at the 800 or so that were at church on a Sunday he started looking at the 20,000 or so that weren't. The Parish system helps reminds us that no church can sit back on its laurels - we are all in a mission field.
Connect 09 did the same thing. We started looking around to who we weren't connecting with and how we could. The parish was the first point of reference for that.
I think Mission Areas may take this further - helping us to work together to connect with the lost. I imagine there will be lots of planning and prayer for our attempts to connect with people who don't yet know Jesus.
you said
Actually, that was from a person in another parish not mine. He is from Carlingford, I am from Hornsby. I hope my son is going well (& I agree with his comment too... I wonder if he picked the idea up from his old man??)
It will not be in re-drawing lines on maps that we find any solution. It will be in God-ordained passionate, courageous leadership and synergistic mission efforts. That is where the new mission areas may help... and where parish churches work across, despite or oblivious to any theoretical line. What we really need are really Mission Clusters, or Mission Clumps or Mission Nets. How will we get these? When the leadership (both denominationally ordained and not) start working synergistically. That may be within a suburb, or people-group or sub-culture or style or profession or... it just has to happen.
Then it seems to me you've got 2 choices - just ignore the map & say its anachronistic & get on with ministry (what I think you're saying) OR reform the parochial map so that it becomes a servant of ministry & then get on with ministry (what I'm saying).
The advantage of redrawing the map is that it helps you see the local ground with neighbours. And as long as the basic unit of ministry for all things diocesan and synodical is the parish - it makes sense to give ministry the legitimacy of a parish.
The disadvantage is that it is time consuming and messy & will itself become anachronistic with time.
Is it worth doing? For many parishes probably not. Their boundaries are pretty good.
But for others, the boundaries can create real problems. Some parishes are enormous - with populations they can't reach and schools they can't do scripture at. Maybe 'synergistic mission' will include reform of structures like this that are slowing down mission.
I wonder if all this talk about boundaries shows up differing ministry wiring. In that, certain people will say this is my responsability therfore, where others will see all relationships irrespective of there location as a criteria for gospel proclimation. I wonder if these are the real 2 choices.
They have been spending too much money for mission in areas where they are already strong, according to Al Mohler.
No system is perfect. We just need to be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of having parish boundaries and thus being flexible for mission.
This is why Michael's suggestion has great wisdom, IMHO
Growth in terms of numbers is very deceptive. eg it is possible to fill a church with men by putting a few free kegs on in church every weekend, keeping the sermon shorter than an ad break, & allowing all sorts of other things to occur in church.
One church may have declining numbers, yet it may be growing in its godliness & spiritual character, so that in 3 years time it will be much more ready to evangelise its neighbours. Another church may be recovering from a devastating breach of trust that occurred in the congregation. Another may be grieving a dying rector or other church leader, & needs time to heal inner wounds before numerical growth might occur again.
We should be looking for appropriate growth for where a congregation or group of congregations (parish) finds itself.
If a parish can be helped by a neighbouring one building links to help with some aspects of ministry, then let it happen locally, & encourage it to happen locally... but never force it to happen. We are people of grace. Be gracious in considering how the growth is occuring, especially when it comes to easily identifiable figures such as numbers and finances.
We spend so much effort in training young clergy, then put them in parishes by themselves & say "Be strong. Be courageous. Go get them, for God is with you." But too often the war wounded suffer so much. I do not believe the answer is to simply replace them with younger, more energetic ones? Or to try to tell them how to suck eggs?
Pastoral care of the senior ministers is just as vital as the proper training of the young ones for a vibrant, spirit-empowered mission of the Diocese.
As the mature are re-energised, secure & feel loved, they will work together & not compete with the ones down the road. Trust will grow. & non-Christians will see the difference.
This is why Michael's suggestion has great wisdom, IMHO
But who is listening? Michael's is but a lone voice calling in the wilderness / blogosphere.
Maybe we should just make the mission area leaders bishops so they can sort it out. Some of the areas proposed are much bigger than dioceses elsewhere in the Anglican world.
LOL!
No camel hair here & no lone voice either.
I reckon Connect 09 helped foster all kinds of partnerships between parishes and shared prayer for the lost around churches. Mission Areas should be a good way to continue that.
But even without a 'program' or structured platform like Mission Areas, this kind of thing can happen informally at a local level
David, any more provocative suggestions like that & Jeremy will give you a column;-)
I reckon that would have been a pretty hard kite to fly. Our default suspicion of centralism would surely have sunk the idea of more bishops.
This all sounds a bit like corporate games, well known in the public sector with each change of minister (a frequent event these days.) Whenever things settle down, or all the previous games prove as valuable as the one preceding, restructure. That way, even if nothing actually happens, we seem to be doing something. Out with Archdeacons, Rural Deans, etc and in with District Leaders.
Restructuring,
that's the name of the game,
and in each generation,
if achieves the same!
and in each generation,
Someone makes a name!
In our remote North section of the Diocese, we have done just that, by having a "cluster" which is a group of about 6 senior ministers who meet each month to share, pray for & encourage each other over lunch. It is the best pastoral care I have received since being a curate!
But why should we be forced to re-invent the wheel, when there seems to be a series of blacksmiths having a go all the time??
& really, every time pastoral care is raised as an issue, it seems to be whitewashed. It certainly has been each time I have raised it at a diocesan or regional level.
Answers include
(a) It is the role of the archbishop... but he is too busy, & he relies on the regional bishops to do this
(b) The regional bishops... are too busy, & the removal of archdeacons has doubled their workload anyway.
(c) The Area Deans... but have you noticed that even their names have been expunged from the red year book for 2009? Do we have such a moniker associated with anyone anymore? I know the area deans think they are still area deans, but does the diocese?
(d) The rector's wardens & other parish members... but they may be too connected to the situations for the senior ministers to share openly with about some of what may be the most pressing needs.
(f) The minister's wife... but sometimes the issues are too close to home, especially if she becomes too protective or wants to help too much, or is too busy with her own ministry/interests.
(g) Mission Leaders ... but their role will be much more entrepreneurial, & seeking ways of getting the mission into action (at least that is what I have understood).
(h) God... Thank you Lord, you are our refuge, but what happened to all the care & love that you want us to encourage each other with Lord?
(i) Psychologists... This is becoming more common...
from bomaderry to dural is really only 2 1/2 hrs worth it if the outcome is God honouring ministry and back on topic I do not believe that the structures given the unique relational nature of our calling can ever really meet the needs it depends on Godly men and women working in real relationships effectively serving Christ. I believe for relationships to be effective there needs to be some core common ground and commitments therfore no external structure can force that reality. Boundary markers are just that someone who likes playing with maps helpful sometimes but not necessarily a deliniator of true relationships IMHO