New Cranmer Society Publications

The Way in the new Millennium - A Strategic Vision

An Address given to New Cranmer Society on 23 March 1999
Bishop George Browning, Bishop of Canberra and Goulburn

Are "A life of faith" and a commitment to strategy compatible? Surely faith is about responding to the Lord's direction, like Abram, not knowing in advance where the journey will lead. Or, to quote Jesus in the Nicodemus passage "The wind blows where it will, you hear the sound of it, but you cannot tell where it comes from, or where it is going, so is everyone who is born of the Spirit".

All of this is true, but we are also children of revelation, God has made himself known to us, we know what we are called to do, even though we may not know the details of the journey. The Word has spoken and we are called to action. (Incidentally, you could say that the scriptures are an account of the Divine strategy, a strategy that reaches its climax on the cross).

In the early days of Christianity strategies were clear and unapologetic viz. Paul to the Gentiles, Peter and the others to the Jews. Paul's journeys and the founding of Christian communities in Asia were clear strategies. The great missionary periods of Church History were marked by clear strategies, however there have been long stretches of Church history when strategies have been less clear. All the stable features of Christendom have characterized these periods, periods in which the Church has taken for granted that it exists to perpetuate the past. We have recently come out of such a period and the need for clear and courageous strategy has again become as important as it has been in any other period of Church history. But how are we to base such a strategy and how will we know if we have it right? I suggest there are two contributors - as there always have been.

The purpose of this paper is to offer some guideposts to the development of a strategy for the Church that is now emerging.

The Trinity is our Policy

I suggest that the trinity is the most fruitful place to begin our journey. In the Christendom era, the doctrine of the Trinity was largely ignored in favour of Christology of Pneumatology . The theological implications of the doctrine of the Trinity fell on deaf ears in the Christendom era, because Church was primarily about institution, structure, hierarchy, authority.

The doctrine of the Trinity is essentially about the Christian view of God, God in community. The first creation story in Genesis is a story of God in community, humanity in community with God and with one another. The Trinity is about diversity in unity, it is about partnership rather than headship, (A more considered Trinitarian theology would take the sting out of some our headship debates), it is about finding identity in communion rather than identity through exclusion, it is about relationship rather than ownership, it is about energy rather than imperium, it is about risk rather than certainty, organism rather than organisation, theologia rather than theologies.

I believe Trinitarian theology to be at the cutting edge of the Church's understanding of itself as well as at the cutting edge of the Church's contribution to and within a world in which these are now the universal issues to be wrestled with.

Incidentally, I also believe a Trinitarian theology challenges the biblical hermeneutic. The Church has accepted this revelation of God not from a text or a series of texts but from the total weight of biblical revelation. Trinitarian theology compels us to be immersed in the whole of scripture and to resist the temptation to treat scripture as a set of proof texts.

How then are we to listen to the cultural changes and opportunities of our time and develop a strategy from a Trinitarian perspective? I suggest it be done by examining antinomies, knowing that the Trinity is, at heart, the revelation of truth as antinomy, three - one. Inevitably such an examination will emphasise one aspect of truth over against the other, such is the limitation imposed in arguing a case. In the longer term each antinomy will need to be continually weighed to ensure that the emerging Church clearly reflects the truth that opposites need to be held in balance. At the end of the day our only policy is to live and proclaim of Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and for ever.

People - Structures

There will never be a time when it is appropriate or even possible to live without structures, this would be anarchy. However, we have lived through a time when the structures were perceived to be more sacrosanct than mission and people were chosen to fill positions rather than live a vocation. Our strategy should now be more flexible, concentrating first on people and their capacity for ministry, seeking to mold structures that will nurture and support priorities in Mission. It should not be taken for granted that there will always be a Parish Council or a Bishop In Council, or indeed that there will always be Rural Deans and Archdeacons, Church Wardens and Chairs of Parish Council. A pattern that works well in one Parish should not necessarily be expected to work well in another.

Our Church is an episcopal Church. For many years episcope has been understood in terms of a Bishop who is granted oversight of a Diocesan structure, a structure geographically prescribed. It is thus prescribed, not just in terms of its boundaries with a neighbouring Diocese, but also in terms of the geographical representation on its boards councils and synod. Without removing all the checks and balances that are inherent in such a structure, would it not be more appropriate for our Church to function through an episcope which is more clearly focused upon the calling of people to exercise or care for a particular portfolio of ministry. While retaining clear lines of accountability, encouragement should then be given to each area of oversight to establish patterns and resources which will enable that particular ministry to grow. The person who has been licensed with due oversight, should also have the responsibility of naming the structures which will most empower that particular ministry.

To argue from a slightly different angle, the committees councils and boards of the Church should, as far as possible, comprise people who have accepted responsibility for a ministry of oversight in the Church. At present most of our boards councils and committees have a high membership percentage from people who are not directly involved in the ministry under consideration. These folk are appointed to serve the paradigm that is gone, namely to give permission, or with hold permission for activities which support or threaten the status quo. Hopefully most items on the agenda of our boards and committees now have very little to do with the status quo.

From a clerical point of view, or from the point of view of stipendiary lay people, there are some profound risks in this strategy. We are now calling people to oversight areas or portfolios of ministry, rather than fitting people into pre determined slots within an organisation. This means that some clergy or stipendiary lay people may not find it easy to move automatically to another position when the need arises. This strategy, while giving much more freedom to people to develop appropriate patterns of ministry, also places upon each person the added responsibility for professional development in order that skills gifts and energies are a t a level being sought for a future ministry. One of the implications of this strategy therefore, is that a life time of ministry can only be guaranteed in as much that those seeking salaried positions retain skills and gifts that the Church seeks.

Our first strategy therefore is not the Church as it always has been under a different name, it is in fact an entirely different approach, which needs to be clearly communicated, especially to those in the work force.

Excellence - Compassion

Our second strategy flows immediately from the first. In an age of stability our task was to maintain the structure. A noble, achievable goal was to leave the Ministry/Parish/Diocese in the same state that we found it. In this situation the qualities looked for were long service, loyalty, faithfulness, reliability. Little emphasis was placed upon excellence in ministry; in fact mediocrity was tolerated, if not expected. People served for very long periods of time, liturgy, music and preaching were tolerated even when not well done.

To leave a ministry as we found it is no longer possible, let alone desirable. If it has not changed or grown, it will have declined or disappeared. Mediocrity in approach or long service for its own sake, are no longer the most laudable aspects of ministry.

Excellence should be our strategy at all levels of Church life. This will involve a number of changes to our thinking. Succession becomes more important. Significant areas of ministry cannot be left to chance. We must train, equip, nurture and encourage folk to take responsibility for the areas of ministry which are deemed to be of highest priority for the life of that community. However, moving in this direction cannot happen by fiat from above. This kind of change can only happen through careful pastoral care. It is a case of one on one encouragement.

Core - Partnership

In a period of history when Kingdom and Christendom were equated in almost a literal, temporal, manner; extending and defining boundaries was paramount. The further the boundaries could be stretched and the more one could include within them, the more successful one could deem to have become. Anglicanism was in one sense at its strongest when it could claim that everyone and almost everything belonged unless it was Roman Catholic or Presbyterian! In this milieu, to be fully self sufficient and independent was a great virtue.

This situation is no longer valid: in fact the opposite is almost true. We are severely weakened if we treat as core, property or enterprises, which are no longer, our core business; or if we insist on doing for ourselves that which could more effectively and efficiently be delivered by others. Others could mean another denomination, another Parish or Diocese, or even more frequently, a resource base from outside the Church itself.

In the Diocese of Canberra and Goulburn some very successful partnerships have emerged in recent times. They include Universities, Government Agencies, other denominations and links across and between Parishes. Our most painful moment in recent years was the sale of Bishopthorpe, however the fact that we have not looked back from that moment is a reasonable indication that it had ceased to be (perhaps never was) part of our core activity.

Global - Local

The patterns of Church life over 2000 years has always witnessed an appropriate adaptation, balancing the local and global. We always live in both arenas. It is as false to say that the only dimension of Church is local, as it is to behave as if the main thrust of Church life is global. Christianity spread rapidly in the early centuries in no small part as a result of the global influences of Greek Culture and the Roman Empire, in the same way, massive growth took place in the 18 and 19 centuries as a result of colonialisation .

Patterns of global and local have radically changed in the last ten years and will change much more in coming decades. It is now very foolish of us to behave as if the patterns of the mid 20th Century can apply in the next century. Education, news, economy and culture used to be locally driven. Now they are globally driven. However, value, meaning, belonging, community are locally derived and experienced. We need to ensure that energy is not wasted on battlegrounds between the two arenas, but to be clear about how the global can best serve the local and how the local and most productively influence the global. For the two dimensions of life to be in harmony should be our goal.

In a relatively short period of time all units of ministry should be in touch with each other electronically. Local and global boundaries should be examined to ensure that artificiality is not maintained and supported at unnecessary expense. We must rethink what we mean by a Diocese, for under our present understanding many Diocesan boundaries are as irrelevant as Parish boundaries. As the local Church is nurtured, its links with the Church catholic must remain strong and appropriate, otherwise local congregations will become little more than self interested sects, with no sense of accountability to orthodoxy, let alone to the richness and diversity of the Church catholic.

Community - Institution

Institutions are managed, communities are led. Institutions are places of power: communities are places of empowerment. Institutions can be places in which to hide; communities are places in which to be discovered. Institutions report what they have done, communities dream of what they would like to be. Institutions know who their members are; communities are open to all who wish to be present.

In reality contrasts are never as stark, however I believe the point is well made. Communities need to be led well. It is doubtful if the Church can afford (in money or in lost opportunity) any paid clerical salaries for folk who lack the capacity to lead. Institutions are led through management. Communities are managed through leadership.

One of the great opportunities facing the Church today is that millions of people long for an experience of community which will sustain and nourish. In the past we have assumed that everyone belonged. Today many wish to belong, for these folk it is not helpful to be first confronted with issues of belief and behaviour before being assured of acceptance and value.

Conclusion

The Kingdom of God is both our goal and vehicle for the journey. Our task is to discover what God is doing and do that. God reveals the Divine action in community, especially in the community we know as Trinity. The taks of the emerging Church is to discover itself afresh within the embrace of that Divine love and with confidence to pour itself into the world that God has made

- Bishop George Browning