The Diocesan Mission – Midpoint Report

We’re half way there! The half way point of the Sydney diocesan mission is a good time to take stock. We have had enough time to see whether our plans are working and it’s not too late to change. The Midpoint Report¹ was prepared by the Mission Board Strategy Committee. It was presented to synod last year and was arguably the most significant report that was given. It shows that we as a diocese are still committed to the mission and willing to take a hard look at ourselves. The ACR congratulates the Mission Board on starting the conversation. Given the significance of this report it is surprising that there has not been more written or said about it.

The report is a “but” report. It recognises the initiatives that have been taken “but” we have not seen the fruit that we were hoping for. We should be grateful for any growth in church attendance “but” 0.5% growth in 4 years is disappointing. If the goal of “at least 10% in 10 years” is achieved it will be observed in the second half of the mission rather than the first. Perhaps we can put the first half down to a time of laying the foundations and learning. The report recognises that a change in direction is needed. We are not talking about fine tuning here but change of “paradigm-shift” proportions. “The change that has occurred in the wider community calls for a fundamental mind-change/paradigm-shift in the way our churches see themselves and respond.” (p4). The report is calling for a shift in thinking about church the way the Copernican theory changed our view of the cosmos and the Keynesian revolution changed our thinking about macroeconomics.

In brief, the report suggests that our lack of progress is due to – adopting an attractional parish model rather than a missional one; a failure to recruit entrepreneurial church planters; training that provides sound theological education but does not equip for parish management; an emphasis on congregational development rather than parish evangelism; and using our resources to maintain non-growth ministries rather than ministries of strategic value. Overall – the old hasn’t worked so let’s try something new.

The report fails to recognise that we are engaged in a spiritual battle. If we have seen little conversion, the primary reason must be because, “The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God²”. The only prescription for this problem is that God would shine his light into hearts.

Since when have we seen the work of the gospel to be one of parish models, entrepreneurs, management and picking winners of strategic value? Why does the report use language that is more at home in a science laboratory or business boardroom than a church? It is important to stress the need for God-made solutions rather than man-made ones.

When we embarked on the mission, we set a goal that was beyond human achievement. We knew that it would take a miracle to achieve it. The mission intentionally directed us toward God. Just as we would have given God praise if we were well on the way to hitting the target, we need to beg his mercy on our unconverted cities. We recognise God’s sovereignty in our successes and our failures.

What the report should be calling for is confession, repentance and prayer. Possibly the problem began when we started to call these things “policy 1” and relegated them to a part of the mission rather than central. We seek a change of hearts not models.

Let’s not “paradigm-shift” ourselves away from God’s word. Perhaps before moving on to the new, we should consider returning to the old, the eternal. Back to the task of extraordinary prayer, faithful and sincere preaching of the gospel and humbling ourselves before God.

This conversation is far from over – it’s not even half way there.

Back to main page.