Shield of Thomas Cranmer, from Flickr, by little miss sunnydale
So, come with me on a thought experiment …
A thought experiment is where you try on an idea, even an impossible idea, just to see where it leads you. In this case, it’s 2 impossible ideas.
First, me running the Diocese – it doesn’t get much more impossible than that! And second, that anyone actually runs the Diocese. It’s actually a lot more complicated – and difficult – than that. But then, this is only a thought experiment.
So, the first thing I’d do is this:
Recast the Diocesan mission in terms of the parishes.
At the moment, the mission – or at least its pointy end, the so called ‘initial goal’ – is set in terms of the Diocese: 10% of the population of the Region of the Diocese in Bible believing churches.
If I ran the Diocese, I’d recast that to put the parishes front and center.
My version would go something like this: to see 80% or more of the churches be growing churches (where a growing church is defined as having at least 10% increase in average attendance for at least 3 years running).
I think there are a number of advantages putting it this way:
- it enacts the values that the center of the Diocese is the parishes
- it gives a clarity of direction to the center – to do everything in their power (financial support, encouragement, wisdom etc) to help parishes grow
- it is within the realms of possibility. The 10% goal was always totally unrealistic – this was said from the start – it was designed to push our thinking. But I fear that’s using a sledge-hammer to crack a nut. This will still push our thinking, but rather than discourage in its implausibility, it would excite precisely because it’s not unimaginable.
The result – if we achieved this for 15 years, the magic of compound interest means that we would be at around 5% of the population!
So, what would you do in terms of the mission if you ran the Diocese?
Hi Andrew, Great post… thanks! Am I right to assume that part 2 (3 or 4 …!) will address the need for planting more churches and entrepreneurial mission strategies, rather than the mission relying solely upon existing churches!?
James, you bet – although be prepared for some surprises!
Katay,
“me running the Diocese – it doesn’t get much more impossible than that!”
… there are a few of us who will not give you that title without a fight.
+ve – your proposal has the advantage of being in sync with the dominant eccleisiology of the diocese as well.
-ve – no-one will own up to being a 20% church (ie one that can’t / won’t grow by 10% for 3 years running). So how does the actual implementation actually work (as opposed to more motherhoody ideas that we should all strive to build growing churches???)
What I had in mind for the 20% is churches in crisis – conflict or immorality etc – or churches at the beginning of a turn-around. I suspect there are a few. But the fact is, it’s an objective thing – that’s the beauty of the goal.
As for implementation, stay tuned – I have a cunning plan (with not a single motherhood statement at all)!
While that sounds good so far, I reckon it might make sense to weigh the targets by local population growth; otherwise, parishes where a lot of land-release is going on might get a free pass. Also, it strikes me that CBD and other parishes in areas of high transiency might warrant their own peculiar metrics.
Feels like the 10% vision is a much larger, open vision. It opens up ministry opportunities. The vision you suggest feels somewhat smaller and more limiting.
I can see your vision being a valid (and helpful) strategy as part of the 10% vision.
Mike
Hi Andrew.
what do you mean if – you already run 1/4 of it !
do you define growing purely numerically or are that other qualitative measures like conversion growth, transfer growth, maturity growth etc
I reckon I could grow a church by free beer and strippers, and may even get some transfers from other inner west churches that aren’t already using such measures
also is 10% arbitrary or is there some magic formula ?
Andrew, your goal is merely the same but spread over a longer time frame.
Surely the problem isn’t with the goal nor even with strategy (church planting) but with implementation at the ‘tactical’ level.
I think I would make the many B.S. groups that meet in streets throughout sydney parishes mini churches responsible for outreach to the streets around them.
on a slightly different tack…
I’d work hard at integrating the work of Anglicare and the local parish – the disconnect of love, good works, and evangelism isn’t helping the mission
(I’d also stop Shane’s stripper proposal but consider the beer)
Michael and Narelle, great thoughts, and we’ll definitely get to evangelism and community engagement, but for the moment, let’s keep on task, working on the goal / mission – what would you say was our goal if you ran the Diocese?
It seems to me really important not to rush past this and get to ideas and strategies too quickly, since the goal you have will shape the ideas and strategies you go for.
Mike, I think the 10% goal being much larger and more open is precisely its problem.
The fact is that over the 7 years of the mission (out of 10), the Diocese has grown from around 1% to about 1.3% (and that’s the most optimistic count). I suggest that there is good reason to think that the 10% goal has actually contributed to the smallness of this growth, by:
1. Making us more centralised, and not focussing on the parishes, since that is how the goal is framed.
2. Not giving a crystal clarity to the actions of the Diocesan organisations in terms of helping parishes grow. The result is that there is no consistent, coherent strategy in the Diocese to help parishes be the sort of parishes that grow (Jeremy, this is the second thing I’d do – coming soon); and
3. Being so entirely out of the realms of possibility that it doesn’t make sense to actually take it at face value. As such, it either becomes merely limp, or even worse, demotivating. There simply is no pathway from here to there that makes sense.
I think the goal, and the way that it’s framed, is really important, so that it keeps the focus where it belongs – on the parishes; provides criteria by which all the Diocesan organisations are aligned; and is motivating precisely because it is achievable.
Shane, good questions on the type of growth.
I want to keep the goal numerical for the sake of purity and simplicity – and also because that’s the best thing for the Diocese to be doing – helping parishes grow numerically.
Of course, it will be at the beating heart of parishes to make sure that the numerical growth is not the only kind of growth – but it’s not particularly the role of the Diocese to help in that.
So, I would keen the Diocesan goal lean and clean!
Day 1 I would reframe the diocesan mission in terms of having ‘healthy’ parishes. Each parish would run NCD or another tool to measure and then start work on being/becoming healthy.
Day 2 I would move Moore College out to the Western Suburbs and provide plenty of parking and new houses for students and staff that were not falling down. I would encourage lay people to come and use the resources of the college, and run conferences that were not ‘academically’ focussed.
Day 3 I would put a 10 year time limit on anyone being an archbishop, bishop, archdeacon or Moore College lecturer and then send them back out to parishes (the real world) after that.
Day 4 I would invest heavily in supporting my front line parish workers -with ongoing training and pastoral care, marriage enrichment, and whatever else they need to create healthy churches and pastoral teams.
Day 5 I would require of my bishops that they visit the clergy in the parishes of their region at least twice a year. I would also employ people to help parishes work on implementing change and developing ministry strategies.
Day 6 I would recruit people from a variety of different backgrounds and cultures to serve in parishes. The training required may vary. A range of new ministry roles would be developed including church planter and interim minister.
Day 7 I would have a day off and rest.
David, sounds like a standard sort of week in the life of a busy Rector!!!
All fascinating ideas, and I’d do lots of similar things, although Jeremy’s question of implementation at the local level is an important one.
But to push back a little, I wonder whether health rather than growth is the right goal. The reason I say that is a gut feeling that anything that is healthy will grow, so the 2 are not really distinct.
But more specifically, a healthy church will grow, because part of its health will include a deep commitment to obeying the commandment of Jesus to make disciples. That is, a healthy non-growing church – apart from really exceptional circumstances which we don’t really have in the Diocese, like a closed Muslim society – seems to me to be a contradiction is terms, at least over the medium-long term.
Having the goal set in terms of growth gives it teeth, precisely because it is measurable (unlike health), and because it depends on and is the product of health.
you haven’t convinced me yet Andrew.
I agree that seeing a numerical goal is measurable but it doesn’t necessarily imply a healthy obedience to the great commission. It may be a theology of glory of whatever.
also growth orientated churches that do set numerical goals (which i do think are important ) are churches in transition (from smaller to larger). The change process itself needs to be managed, and I may be wrong but I understand that if you are going to manage a change process well, spiritual and relational vitality are essential.
and spiritual and relational vitality may not be as lean and clean to measure as backsides, but implicit in most churches strategies are measirable indicies of health
e.g we want to grow more and more followers who are
1. hooked into community groups,
2. enjoying the larger assembly
3. mobilized to serve in some way
4. committed to personal growth and renewal
5. intentional about promoting Christ glory in all the world
1/5 is less healthy
5/5 is more healthy wouldn’t you say.
rather than a raw number of attendance (which only measures one of these indices) , I reckon we may be better for initially smaller and healthier numbers, which will have built into their DNA a better dynamic for growth .
Dave
Day 4 seems to be the key, resourcing the mission leaders, giving them the right tolls and encouragement (DAy 5 is a subset of this )
I reckon this is where regional councils can make an impact, by spending less money on grants and more money on strategic consultation. ( not that there is that much money these days!) .
Day 2 and 3… David seems to be suggesting that there is an unreality about what goes on at Moore. That’s worth considering… how might that change? We do live in amongst the grunge at Newtown – one of the most atheistic parts of the city!
Anyhow: I am hoping Katay’s going to address the matter of theological education soon.
Also, if I ran the diocese, I’d make you blog with a bigger font and a light background!!! REALLY!
Dr Jensen
try
ctrl + +
A realistic target? Since in the last 100 years people calling themselves Anglican has dropped from 50% of the Sydney population to – well, a much smaller number, perhaps we should set the goal as “Over the next 10 years we will drop by no more than 5%”. That’s more realistic!
But more seriously – do you really reckon your goal is more realistic (that 80% of churches would be growing by 10% yearly)? What is realistic under God? Do you really think if your goal was the controlling aim over the last 7 years you would have achieved that aim? Would more churches be involved in the mission? Would more evangelism be done? Would churches really be growing 10% a year?
Your suggestions have merit – however as the “controlling” aim, it’s in danger of stopping ministry by being inward focussed. Non parish ministry is not included in the vision. Uni chaplains, hospital chaplains, School chaplains, Anglican School ministry, Uni ministry, hospital ministry, Tafe ministry, School camps (such as AYWs) are all ministries that don’t fit well in the parish models. Church planting and new churches are part of the vision. Other bible believing churches and organisations are not included as our vision for ministry gets reduced to naval gazing in our own backyards.
The beauty of the 10% vision is all ministry, in all forms, in all contexts is encouraged and part of it. Our vision of how to reach our city is opened up, not shut down.
However – after saying all that – your criticisms of the current mission have merit, and helping not forget about parish ministry is important.
– Uni chaplains, hospital chaplains, School chaplains, Anglican School ministry, Uni ministry, hospital ministry, Tafe ministry, School camps (such as AYWs) are all ministries that don’t fit well in the parish models. –
While formally counted as parishes, to some extent I reckon our city churches (CCSL, SJKS, STNS and SPYS come to mind) also strike me as de facto industrial chaplaincies.
Andrew,
I feel the danger of the 10% vision being hijacked by a centralist agenda (or, more benignly, simply fostering a slow drift in this direction).
I’m also very glad that your alternative suggestion meshes with a more congregational (and pastoral) focus. Wouldn’t it be beautiful to officially ‘back’ those seeking to revitalise existing churches and nurture Christians towards a full, active and fruitful maturity (which would no doubt include the extension of a gracious witness) with as much seriousness as we talk about ‘backing’ efforts at entrepreneurial church planting?
But I am looking forward to seeing how you propose to address the concerns expressed by people like Mike and Michael to see innovative and not-exclusively-parish-based ministries developed and implemented.
My investigation into the history of ESL ministry in the Diocese, for example, suggests that a degree of (ahem) ‘encouragement’ from the top is often needed to see such ministries adopted in a more strategic and widespread manner.
Has the current 10% mission had any impact on these non-parochial organizations, or have just gotten on with the job that they were doing pre-mission?
Ouch. Yep. Good point, Matt.
Mike, “all ministries, all forms, all contexts” seems to me to be exactly the problem – 100 miles wide, but only 1 inch deep, at least as far as effectiveness of action goes.
yet there is little evidence your suggestion will be any more effective. Instead, it possibly shuts down mission.
Why not have your suggestion as part of the bigger 10% vision? “To help us reach 10%, we want 80% of our churches growing by 10% or more yearly”.
@Matthew: From what I’ve seen it has. Other organisations (both inside and outside the anglican church) have taken hold of the 10% aim, and working out how they can help achieve it.
And it’s nice that they’ve chosen to get on board with the mission. But that hasn’t been universal, i.e. I know some uni ministries that haven’t jumped on board with the 10% aim.
If parish based ministry is the coalface of what we do, then that needs to be recognized in our mission statement.
Mike, not sure that you hear what I’m suggesting – the 10% goal is part of the problem, not part of the solution, for the 3 reasons in the original post and then in my response to your first post.
As for evidence, that’s where my suggestion is at its strongest … see Part 2 coming later.
I’ve heard you – I’m just not convinced of your argument that 10% is part of the problem, nor am I convinced your solution is any more realistic. And it feels like it introduces its own major problems.
However, I do like the focus on helping parish become growing parishes, and I look forward to hearing your other thoughts.
Mike
Mike, at the risk of being a bore, I want to push back gently one more time. the reason is I’m not sure that it’s enough simply to say you’re not convinced. I think it would help move the discussion forward if you responded to the arguments I’ve made in support of my claim ie.
1. It seems intuitively reasonable to think that the fact that the Diocesan mission has not been cast in terms of the parishes is related to the fact that there is no specific Diocesan body dedicated to helping parishes grow, no mention was made of helping parishes grow in the Mission mid term report etc. If so, the it would be fair to say that the way the goal is framed has actually effected the way things have turned out – not enacting the value that the parishes are at the center.
2. Clearly some churches are growing churches (ie. have grown by 10% or more for 3 years running), so such a thing is possible. What’s needed is a strategy that understands how to help more do it – see part 2, with evidence. On the other hand, there is no even remotely possible pathway toward achieving the 10% goal, and it doesn’t seem unreasonable to think that it has functioned either limply (ie not evoking effective action) or even counterproductively (deflating ministry).
Of course, it might not be realistic to think that we could get to 80% of churches being growing churches, maybe 70%, or 60% – but either way, if that was the goal and it provoked specific actions like in part 2, and we achieved it, then we’d be a lot further ahead than we are now – which is the whole point!
Sure, I’m happy to have another go.
1) I see parishes hopping on board with the 10% aim. I see parishes doing more evangelism than before. I see parishes starting to turn around and be more outward focussed. The 10% vision has helped them do that. It’s not perfect, and it’s not universal. It takes a long time to turn things around (no matter which aim you select). It’s a big ship. That parishes have actually grown is a great thing. It’s not enough – but it’s much better then dropping numbers which has happened the last many many years. I don’t think things are as bad off as you suggest. Now, I actually agree with you that the “mission” can do more to help parishes. And as I’ve said, I would be happy to see something like what you suggest as part of the strategy. So I disagree with saying the vision is the root cause of the problem, and so I disagree that changing the aim will fix it.
2) To believe that 80% of parishes can grow 10% per year for 15 years is as silly as thinking we can convert 10% of Sydney. As far as I am aware, it’s never happened in Australia in our entire history. However – I agree it’s an admirable goal, and we can do much better. So I’m happy to see movement to do this. I don’t have a problem working towards big goals. But since your using “realistic goals” as a indicator of what goals we should have, then your goal fails your own test. Why not aim for another 1% growth over the next 7 years? Or push ourselves – and aim for 2%. Of course – that feels like we’re aiming for mediocrity. I can’t remember the stats for the 7 years before the 10% goal, but wasn’t it shrinkage? If we stuck to a “realistic” goal, it may be “to shrink less”. Under God’s grace, we’ve grown.
3) On top of this, so far it looks like your goal limits ministry to Anglican parish work. As a controlling goal, it leaves out not only innovative non-parish ministry, but those ministries where we have actually seen (traditionally) the most growth – such as Uni ministry. It doesn’t open up ministry opportunities, it shuts them down (unless it’s done in a parish).
To be honest – I started off today liking your vision. But the more I thought about it as a controlling goal, the more I think it just doesn’t cut it.
I’m with Chris when he says it would be good to see as much enthusiasm for revitalising parish ministry as for new entrepreneurial ministry that doesn’t fit the “normal” parish ways. But I don’t see limmiting the vision to Anglican parishes as the solution.
I’m hoping I’ve been somewhat clearer here. And I do look forward to your next posts, where you have promised to deal with some of these things.
Mike
Mike, thanks, happy to leave it there, but with two small comments.
First, doing more widely a thing which is already being done seems much more plausible to me than doing something unimaginable – but that depends on your imagination!
Second, I’ve run the numbers for the Diocesan attendance from the Yearbook. I’ve adjusted them for the number of parishes that didn’t submit their numbers. It comes out like this:
1996 62,500
1997 55,000
1998 52,000
1999 52,000
2000 51,500
2001 58,500
2002 57,000
2003 55,500
2004 55,000
2005 58,000
2006 62,000
So, hard to draw conclusions. The Diocesan mission started in 2002, the present Arch-episcopacy began in the middle of 2001.
The fact is that the figures are both extremely rubbery, and the best we’ve got. Either way, the overall result of the mission from 2002-2005 is negligible.
Still, let’s move on …
yeah – I think “extremely rubbery” is an understatement. Some wardens count heads. Some count feet. Some count toes. Some count fingers and toes.
But I don’t think we (generally) disagree on the numbers – just what they mean, and what to do about them.
And yep – happy to leave it there.
Mike
Mike, one thing I forgot to say.
10% of the Diocese is, as you say, silly.
But 80% of the churches growing 10% per year for 15 years – it turns out that it’s not silly at all. I know a Diocese where it’s happened, and the bishop who’s leading it. And other Dioceses where it’s on the way. It really is doable.
That’s the difference between the 2 goals.
Andrew said ” 10% of the Diocese is, as you say, silly.”
So which bits of the diocese would that be?
Well, I lived on the North Shore for 20 years, and it was pretty silly at times. But it’s those Eastern Suburbs roads that really crack me up!
An evangelical diocese of similar size and complexity as Sydney? If so – they would be worth listening to.
However, even if I do admit your aim is more achievable, or even is achievable, my points in (1) and (3) remain the same.
Mike
Yes same size (over 250 parishes), and similar complexity and straightforward evangelical.
Still not clear on what your point 1 is suggesting – sure, some things are happening in lots of parishes, but the plain fact is that the growth of the Diocese has stalled, right at the time when when it should be gaining momentum. And it’s crucial to face that fact, rather than point to some good things that are happening.
As for point 3, the 10% vision is as focused on churches as my suggestion – it says nothing about non-church ministries. It just couches it in Diocesan terms.
But I agree that the non or para-church side of thing has plenty to contribute, and have got some thoughts coming soon. What I would say is that that contribution should be in the service of the churches – it’s churches that Jesus is building.
didn’t Tim Foster crunch some numbers based on NCLS data regarding the 6 years prior to the start of the mission, and the 6 years hence?? (it was over a year ago…)
my memory (which is also “rubbery”) was that there was virtually no statistical difference in growth, once population changes were accounted for
your raw data of bums of pews / /fingers in the plate (independent of pop. figures) seems somewhat irrelevant to the stated goal of 10% of the population, no?
however, that is another difference b/w your goal and the current, and maybe exposes a flaw… growing 10% for s greenfield church is different to one in the wasteland areas of the diocese?
It feels like we are just running around in circles, so I will leave it there.
Geoff, not sure about the numbers, and hoping to do some more research soon.
One of the things I like about the ‘growing church’ goal is that it takes into account at least something of the circumstances of the church. Moving a church from 40 to 44 seems a realistic ask, and likewise from 400 to 440.
Yes same size (over 250 parishes), and similar complexity and straightforward evangelical.
Name the diocese Katay. And let’s study it.
Funny you should mention it, Justin.
It’s a Baptist region on the West coast of the USA (Driscoll’s famously irreligious section of the country). And don’t let the fact that actually the USA os much more church going than us confuse the issue. These were churches that in that context were not growing, and then change took place, and then 150 churches turned around.
And I am studying it – or at least trying to. I was in the US in March, and had the opportunity to see some of it first hand. Very stimulating.
And what they do is on the next post – as simple, and as challenging as that!
[...] If I ran the Diocese, I’d … (Part 1) [...]
Andrew, coming to this days late. But just and only challenging this comment
The fundamental aim of the mission’s strategy was and is
Policy 2 of the Fourfold Policy specifically refers to enabling “parish churches to expand numerically, equip and nurture their members and become the mother-churches of as many fellowships and congregations as possible” (emphasis mine).
So parishes were there in the centre of the rhetoric, although I agree it’s good to review the reality.
Regards,
SG
Sandy,
thanks for that. I hear you, and it’s also true that churches are in the initial goal.
But my point was that the initial goal was framed primarily in terms of the Diocese rather than the parishes, and that I would go down a different track, which I think would end up foregrounding somewhat different issues for us.
I very much like the practical nature of the goal, and the clarity that it would provide to churches in creating visions for growth.
Thanks, look forward to reading more If IRTD I’d
Calum,
good of you to drop in – looking forward to the interaction.
[...] you should. He has a great post about the initial goal of the Sydney Anglican Diocease . See it here (I like his goal [...]
[...] light of this insight, I’ve been wondering what kind of impact discussions like this one will have? I think moving towards realistic goals is definitely a step forward, and generally [...]
I truly enjoyed reading through this posting.Many thanks.