The major item of discussion in the first week of this year's synod was the investment losses, and the consequential discussions about future funding.
Encompassed in the latter is the proposal for about 20 mission areas across the Diocese.
What seemed like a relatively minor amendment for funding this new structure has captured my thinking ever since it was raised.
It was the amendment which changed the allocation of the funding from “Mission Leaders” to “Mission Areas”. It was quickly accepted by the movers, seemed like a good idea to all, and was duly incorporated into the appropriations ordinance that was passed.
The nub of our mission problem
Within it lies an issue which we should give much thought to. This shift from the individual (mission leader) to the corporate (mission areas, encompassing all people in our churches) is significant and brings us to one of our most significant problems.
Almost all of us would testify to the reality that 20 percent of the people in churches do 80 percent of the work; 20 percent of the people give 80 percent of the budget; and 20 percent of the people do 80 percent of the evangelism.
No one would deny that leadership is important. Further, no one would deny the importance of investing in future leadership (I hope!). In addition, we can't drive too much of a wedge between the two (Mission areas and mission leaders), for the idea of the latter is to serve the former.
However, thinking more broadly about mission areas opens up very important questions:
1. Our basic unit of operating is the Parish church. This has many strengths and weaknesses. But, if we were to approach this question from a mission mindset, what would the best structure be?
2. To what extent are people in the typical church interested in mission? I am all for getting more people involved, and teaching more to be mission orientated. I give considerable energy in attempting to do so. But I keep hitting brick walls? Am I the only one?
3. Why is it that our parish units do not naturally work together? Could it be lack of trust, personal egos, a sense of competition, or is it more simply we don't know how?
Some of these questions take my mind back to Synod last year, to one of our most significant problems: our mission has not captured the hearts and minds of most people in our churches.
I find social interaction at my gym enlightening of church life for all kinds of reasons.
In one of the classes I go to, someone arrives really early and sets up the back third of the room for all of her friends. As they come, her friends are invited to join her in the 'prime position'. The gym management hates the practice and has tried to stop it.
Why? 'Because it alienates new people, and we want new people to feel welcomed'.
We want to protect what we've got. We resist change. We can become cliquey.
My experiences at the gym are the typical experience for many walking into many churches. And at the same time, even at synod, us church leaders can do the same, can't we?
