ADVERTISMENT
AUDIO
 |
Phillip Jensen speaks on Anger as part of a series on emotions in the Christian life, delivered at the Australia Day Convention 2010
|
JOBS+CLASSIFIEDS
LATEST COMMENTS
3 hours 33 minutes
Tom Barrett commented on Musings of a Music Director6 hours 23 minutes
David Palmer commented on When simple self help doesn’t help….6 hours 38 minutes
David McKay commented on MP3 files from Corinth20 hours 9 minutes
Sean Hogan commented on Power of testimonyDebate on new mission areas
The Archbishop wants to create about 20 mission areas and appoint a mission leader in each. This proposal comes before Synod next week and is described in an Appendix of the Diocesan Mission Strategic Directions 2010-12 Paper.
The proposal is a significant one for several reasons:
- It is being pitched as ‘the next stage of Connect 09’ and will lead to a ‘re-drawing of the diocesan map’ to promote local mission
- It is being put forward at the same time that regional episcopal responsibilities are being reformed, and funding is being cut to regional councils.
- the cost of $300,000 over three years to equip local leaders is not insignificant at a time of tight budgets
- many of the details are yet to be worked out - how many mission areas? who will be the mission leaders? which Bishop will oversee this initiative? what will the relationship be with area deaneries?
I’m not sure what I think of this initiative.
There are things I love about it:
- I love the desire to see local leaders trained to think missionally. I think leadership does make a difference to the local church and money spent on equipping leaders is money well spent
- I can see how mission areas could help local mission partnerships form between parishes (that has been one of the greatest strengths of Connect 09).
- The current geographic regions are pretty meaningless for reaching tribal Sydney - they are just too big. It remains to be seen whether a redrawn map would help but in principle it sounds right.
But I’ve also got some reservations:
- the mission areas are still geographic - while this works for a suburban setting like Roseville it won’t work to reach all the tribes in Sydney. What about Chinese Sydney, City Worker Sydney etc?
- isn’t this happening already without diocesan bureaucracy attached to it? I’m certainly indebted to a few senior ministers who have generously given me time to help train me in thinking about mission to the local area. I’ve also had fruitful partnership with a number of local ministers as we’ve worked through Connect 09 mission plans together. Will an institutional framework help grow this leadership or choke the life from it?
- Is it worth the cost? What will we not do by doing this? What kind of training will be delivered for $300,000? Are there better ways to develop local mission leaders than this?
We Anglicans are a pretty conservative and risk averse bunch so a major shake up like this will probably meet a deal of resistance at Synod.
But you don’t have to wait for the Archbishop to invite you to a microphone.
Do you think the proposal will enhance mission for your church?
I’d especially like to hear from those who think we should get behind this proposal.
this year the regions were given 2.544 mil. next budget .7
but there are some new things.
300 k for mission leaders being one
300 k for university ministry another (this used to be funded by the regions)
the 700 k is for the regions to
1. support their bishops with executive assistants ( this used to be paid from the archbishop kitty)
2. do whatever regions do in supporting local ministry (like start up grants for new workers)
3. encourage cross cultural and ethnic ministry
behind all this is the issue of centralism vs regionalism.
e.g the centre is going to look after university ministry (in my view a very good thing)
e.g mission leaders willeffectively create a replacement for regions - but leave the regions in place for a bit longer (with far less money to execute) .
if you love regionalism as it stands - you won't be happy.
there is relatively little money when you take out the admin (300k) and divided the rest by 5 ( 80k each?)
but if you love regionalism in a new form - then this baby is for you
the mission leaders are like mini bishops in one sense - and more of them!
but the difference is that they don't have council to work with or budgets to fund new ministry ( like cross cultural ministry, or church plant start ups etc )
and it is very unclear what they'd actually do (besides employ a secretary or administrator at their own church so that they have time ot visit you and have a coffee !)
either you keep regions and give them their money to fund ministry
or
you kill regions and push these mini regions with 'mini' bishops, and give them the personal and the power to execute something that will help mission.
AND
create a cross cultural and ethnic mission groups - and give them some money to actually do something (unlike this synod report which says its important but not important enough to actually get a line in the budget)
in contrast uni ministry has been given important and priority ( a budget line 300k) - which is effectively a step of minimalising regional decisions that might threaten that funding.
so I am not behind as it presently stands - because as you have said - it is more structure but less money to do anything substantive until the old scaffolding is ripped down.
Shane, I hope the plan for ethnic ministry is given a bit more flesh at Synod.
As far as I can figure out from the Strategic Directions paper, the Rectors who will be the heads of these regions are supposed to lead the other churches in their region in being mission focussed/minded/structured.
At the risk of annoying most of the Rectors and lovers-of-Rectors in the Diocese - do we have the talent for that?
If the strategy is going to work, a strategy that is intended to continue Diocese-wide attitude change, surely we're going to need 20 excellent, missionally minded and missionally skilled Rectors to inspire, train and encourage mission in their region alongside their own parish work. 20 Rectors who have had experience of church planting? Or at least significant new growth in their parishes? Or some sort of training in mission strategy etc?
Maybe these 20 exist...???
Or will it just be 20 Rectors who make the most of the right kinds of noises?
Is another strongly hierarchical structure really the best way to continue a movement for change across the Diocese? As above, I'm all for relationships being formed between local parishes who are doing similar work among similar people - relationships of mutual encouragement are key catalysts for change, but do these need to be institutionalised?
I think you will find that it is a "request" or suggestion to the regional councils to make this a priority with the (vast?!!) resources they have been allocated.
the issue I see is that regional councils already have commitments that they will battle to fufill, and whilst some or all might already be supportive of cross cultural and ethnic ministry - there is not a direct budget line like uni ministry or year 13 etc
my guess is this is because the regions have already taken a massive hit in funding - the mission area leaders effectively being one of them.
Michael
we are a conservative bunch, and arguably an an overly structured and bureaucratic bunch. I think we should welcome new structures, but I think it is dangerous to create new structures whilst the old are still in place. My guess this triennium we will have to live with that transition.
Key questions:
1. Where is the evidence that such an approach might work? I am concerned that we were proposing to spend half a million dollars in the first year, without much concrete evidence that it might work, e.g. from already existing working models.
My response is to suggest that the approach be trialled via a pilot program in one region.
And how will we know if it is working in 1, 2 or 3 years? How will we review this expenditure's effectiveness?
2. Is it realistic for already busy rectors to try and do this job on a part time basis 1 day/week? Experience as an MTS Regional Coordinator on a very similar basis made me aware that it was very difficult to do.
3. Is there any room for alternative approaches - e.g. 2 full time mission coaches to work intensively with 20 volunteer rectors perhaps in small groups from various regions each year.
Could such alternatives be considered in one region alongside the other main approach?
Continued below.
There are some good reasons for this. Our theology rightly places the centre of action at the local church and the coal-face there. And we believe God normally works through relationships. And so trust develops best where people know each other. So people are less likely to buy into something where they do not know the people, unless they are highly motivated.
But of course, there are sinful reasons, where we are overly local and narrow and even competitive in our focus and I know we rectors need to repent of this.
Given all this, why would this proposal work where Area Deaneries by my observation over the last 15 years have largely failed to function.
5. Should greater attention be given to promoting bi-lateral partnerships? These often seem to work better than multi-lateral efforts, which just increase the complexities of working together.
A ministry that is sort of owned by everyone is often in reality not owned by anyone at a deep level. This is especially true if the people concerned are already exceptionally busy.
Continued...
So I think we will need more than twenty.
7. Is there some way of allowing local parish involvement in the method of appointment of Mission Leaders? E.g. perhaps via requiring a nomination to be seconded/supported by a certain percentage of rectors in the district. This might give greater ownership of the process and respect for and connection to the person appointed as Mission Leader.
Over all I can see the attraction of the idea. And if the Synod backs the plan then I would certainly work for it to be a success, rather than crossing my arms and sitting back and waiting for problems.
But I would also be glad to see a pilot program first as a variation.
I don’t think there is anywhere near enough detail for us to be able to vote intelligently on this and the detail that has been provided leads me to think it is not something I would support. The random ideas in my head at the moment, from the report are:
1. If our clergy are not being trained to ‘think missionally’ from the very beginning of their training then we need to fix their foundational training, not tack on structures to compensate. I think clergy now are actually perfectly able to identify the local ‘tribes’ and ‘deserts’ and recognise partnership opportunities.
2. Local churches are perfectly capable of identifying their tribes and deserts now. Many have shown a capacity to partner in creative ways when their own resources are insufficient. The great danger is that we spend so long identifying our local ‘mini-tribes’ and ‘mini-deserts’ and pour a small handful of financial resource into each, when we know that the biggest desert we have is south-west Sydney and so we should strategically pool the resource and deploy it there.
3. I don’t believe we have ‘in house’ the capacity to deliver the training that the report describes and so I want to know who is going to deliver it and how. I see $300,000 and I think ‘a well resourced church plant at Lakemba’...
5. What happens if I don’t get on with my ‘mission leader’? What happens if we have theological differences? What happens if he moves parish? What happens when parishes change their rector? What does it mean for the ‘mission leader’ to ‘draw the local leadership together and help set the agenda for what needs to be done’?
6. I don’t think of this as an act of decentralisation. It is not devolving regional responsibilities to ‘mission areas’ it is consolidating parish responsibilities into ‘mission areas’. Things that parishes should themselves be doing now will be repeated in the forum of the ‘mission areas’
7. If these newly invested structures are to be the conduit for diocesan resources to flow to parishes, what are the criteria that will be used for assessing competing opportunities? Who will decide what goes where?
We should select and train the best clergy we can, and then let them get on with leading. They’ll sort the rest out themselves without having structures imposed upon them. Take the little(!) money we have left after the GFC, and deploy it in a concentrated way in the driest desert we can find in Sydney (hint, look for all the big pointy minarets).
Those are my thoughts at the moment.
Craig
stmarks.com.au
The question is who (if anyone) should be responsible for macro strategy. The cutbacks mean bishops can't do this.
The logic of Craig's position is that we should leave strategy up to individual parishes (apart from cross-cultural: in fact the Strategy doc acknowledges this needs to be co-ordinated centrally even if Shane is right and there is no real $$ there).
I went to my first Synod expecting just to listen and learn, and found myself on my feet seeking to speak on lay administration since I had been so blessed by a strong lay eldership of men at my first parish as rector, Kurrajong.
Much to my surprise I got the call to speak (I had not yet learned to dress in a suit, and I think they were looking for people other than the 'usual suspects'!) Your old rector Graham Crew and also Robert Tong were kind enough to encourage a first time speaker who was fairly nervous.
That is almost the logic of my position.
I wasted enough client money back in my consulting days on swinging the old 'centralise, now decentralise' pendulum to learn that whatever the problem is, structure imposed from onhigh is unlikely to be the answer. Now days I tend to adopt the Ronald Reagan approach, 'the 9 most terrifying words in the English language are "I'm from the diocese and I'm hear to help"'. That's not a reflection on our current leadership in the diocese, who I consider a generous blessing from God.
Put the right people in the parishes, with the Word of God in their hand and the Spirit of God in their hearts and let them get on with it and focus the diocese level financial resources to do 'big things' (like creating an oasis in the biggest desert, or providing everybody with really good quality cheap versions of Luke's gospel or training the next generation of leaders, or providing low cost 'shared services' like IT support or graphic design).
@Sandy: I may get up myself but it will probably be with a printout of your comments in my hand!
Do you really think bishops are responsible for mission strategy in our diocese right now?
Craig
stmarks.com.au
Quick back of envelope calculation:
Wollongong Region - the five identified by Sandy
South Sydney - Eastern Suburbs; City; Inner West
Georges River - St George; Canterbury-Bankstown; Liverpool
North Sydney - northern beaches; lower north shore; upper north shore; Ryde
Western Sydney - Auburn-Parramatta; Hills; Blacktown; Penrith-lower Blue Mountains; (I'd put Lithgow-Katoomba-Hawkesbury into one mission area cause they share similar rural/regional issues)
... alternatively you could go Penrith; Blue Mountains; Hills-Hawkesbury
That may be true on paper, but I have a sneaking suspicion that responsibility for any strategic success we've enjoyed as a diocese in the last few years can be attributed to a small number of mostly senior rectors 'doing their thing' and that same group have the most significant influence over the strategies for growing the kingdom and edifying the saints deployed in parishes across the diocese. I have another sneaking suspicion that it would have all happened whether we had bishops or regional council or not.
Come to think of it I think Mark Driscoll, Tim Keller and the Dean of the Cathedral have more influence over the strategies adopted in this diocese than the bishops.
Craig
stmarks.com.au
No. But I would be very surprised if the Archbishop's Presidential address doesn't mention it.
No, no, no!!!!
It is an argument against it because it is already happening without us spending an extra cent; and then we come along and wreck it by 'structuring' it along geographical lines and reducing it's flexibility and nimbleness in response to change and we risk dampening the entrepreneurial spirit of those who thought they were putting up their hand to be 'mission directors' but now find they are working to an agenda that a 'mission leader' has 'helped' set for all the local parishes.
Well put Allan. THis is a good concern. I wonder if some more details would allay these concerns.
I suspect the deanery model isn't what is being proposed.
I wonder if the closest precedent is what the Archbishop did with PJs at PJs - rectors being given the chance to rub shouders with others, share a big vision for ministry, but ground it at local church level. If Mission Directors do this sort of thing - & the money gives them the time & resources to do it - then this could be a great help for the leaders at a local parish level.
What do others think?
those who have participated could probably say more, but putting money into this kind of resourcing actually helps rectors to do their job without imposing a structure over them, and the mentor is doing a doctor of ministry program so it is very practical.
if the diocese could find 20 men who have led churches well and have something like a doctor of ministry under their belt so that they could mentor effectively, I would think that it has legs.
as I said earlier - it just seems like central structure on top of an older structure that is losing its fiscal power.
I think I'd rather invest the time that could be spent in conferences and forums and workshops doing what I've been doing for the last couple of hours; knocking on doors with members of my parish getting to know the community and talking to them about Jesus.
there's be many who are in your situation and who are happy to just do it. They've thought through issues, are able to see way forward, and are happy leading others doing it.
That won't be everyone's experience though, and many may benefit from something like this. Which is why flexibility is needed. You don't want a regime that would compel you to go through a waste of time. But it'd be good to have the flexibility so that those who'd benefit from it could take advantage.
THe other advantage is - it may open your eyes to possibilities beyond the parish responsibilities - the struggling church you can partner with etc
I think there is a place for mission partnerships, that even have structural alignment, but I think the mission areas who be more effective if they were smaller.
I wondered whether local council areas is more manageable and practical.
e.g the 5-6 churches in our marrickville local government area could work in partnership, praying, resourcing, advocating etc. in a way that a larger group wouldn't work as effectively.
but it depends on the willingness of the rectors and pastors in a way that I not sure a central structure can assist until ordinances capital and parish political structures start amalgamating - at which point you need an archdeacon or effective administrator to help navigate that set of mine fields.