|
|
|
|
Proposal: the next three to five years
|
Proposal: the next three to five years
November 2008
Introduction
Over the past few months, the Reference Group has been considering the future directions of the Urban Mission Network (UMN).
This seems to be an opportune time to develop our vision for the next three to five years as the Network Review report, presented at the October Synod/Presbytery meeting, has not made any recommendations for change to our membership, style or the scope of our original mandate.
Several helpful insights have encouraged us to think about our long term future.
Developing and strengthening the objectives of the UMN
• We can continue our current pattern and be relaxed about recruiting congregations to the UMN by assuming that 16 to 20 congregations makes a viable network. Our sense is that our 19 congregations support what the network is trying to achieve but are asking what more can we do to work together.
• We want to be an active network serving and assisting one another to develop strong and purposeful directions in ministry and mission.
• We need to bring congregation leaders together so that we can make connections between what we are learning about ministry and mission in our specific local contexts and how this informs the Network’s original vision which was first articulated in 2005 – refer attachment or the UMN web site http://www.urbannetwork.org.au/aboutus/index.php.
• We are becoming aware that the emphasis and outlook which we bring to mission and ministry is distinctive and complements other priorities in the Presbytery.
• The UMN has developed a leadership role in the wider church through the way it advocates for inclusiveness, social justice and the progressive Christianity movement.
UMN is also committed to exploring the relationship between the practice and theory of Australian public theology.
• We are conscious that most congregations in our network are well resourced in terms of leaders, finance and property.
• We are aware that many neighbourhood congregations in disadvantaged communities belong to other networks and have limited resources or leadership to sustain engagement with their community. Some of these small congregations feel intimidated and put down by policies which suggest that mission is confined to church growth objectives.
A moment of opportunity
• Our recent success in calling ministers to vacancies indicates that we will have a strong team over the next three to five years.
Most ministers and lay leaders are willing to contribute to the vision of the network but need to engage in helpful conversations about how they can serve and discover how the network is a resource for developing local mission and ministry objectives.
We have discovered a great deal about the different ways our churches are connecting and serving their community and the stories of local mission we have shared have been motivating and inspiring. We are also discovering how the church contributes to civil society and is a resource for nurturing neighbourhoods and local community life.
Further applied research, analysis and theological reflection are needed if we are to work together and tease out the implications for future ministry in a changing world and in a secular and urban environment.
• Our churches share a common view about mission and we have the potential to help each other think things through and discover how we learn from the insights and inspiration which we gain through experience. Action/reflection and learning from experience is an important process in the way we support each other.
Proposal for discussion
1. That we be more purposeful in developing the vision of the Network and its profile in the context of the wider church.
2. That we develop a more consistent and disciplined approach in resourcing and supporting each other as we grow our vision of public ministry, community engagement and mission style.
3. To achieve these objectives we propose that we establish an identifiable program, centre, forum or think tank to focus the task of UMN and that such a centre would be a resource base where programs of applied research and action/reflection could be promoted and coordinated.
Examples. Along with other urban mission models we already find inspiration in the work, ministry and ethos of the Iona community. This spirit is evidenced by the way we minister in affirming the relationship between work and worship, prayer and politics and the sacred and the secular. The spirit of Iona is also evident in the way we find strength in working together for peace and social justice, the rebuilding of community and the renewal of worship. Each of these elements is evident in the ministry of the Iona community. (www.iona.org.uk).
Contact and relationships through collaboration and partnership could also be developed with other networks and agencies in similar urban contexts, e.g. Flinders University and ACD, Australian Centre for Christianity and Culture Canberra, Charles Sturt University and Clive Pearson UTC Sydney, the Alban Institute, Christian Research Association and other agencies which address public church/public theology issues.
Some of these agencies, eg the Global Network for Public Theology (GNPT), have an academic emphasis which promotes theological contributions on public issues, especially those issues affecting the poor, the marginalized and the environment in a global-local context (www.ctinquiry.org).
Others have an emphasis on urban practice, for example the Collins St Baptist church which has a program called Urban Seed. (www.urbanseed.org). Other urban examples include the William Temple Foundation, Manchester, and the many research projects in the USA funded by the Lily Foundation.
How a centre would contribute to the church’s mission
• The centre would primarily draw on existing experience and ministry insights gained over the past few years but would aim to provide a more consistent, disciplined and planned coordination and management of our learning experiences, research and educational methods.
• Programmes of the centre would not be limited to UMN congregations and could involve seminar series, conferences, action research projects, scholarship programs, forums and collaboration with churches and other agencies to explore public church/public theology. It could provide support and back up for specific sub networks eg eco faith or solar churches.
• The centre could provide opportunities for those training for ministry and offer to be a partner with the Synod’s centre for leadership development.
• The centre would function alongside the Network’s normal routine and administrative support. An advisory board or panel of say of 6 to 8 members appointed by the UMN could be established so that the centre could have the best insights from experienced leaders in the church and community.
In the first instance a coordinator would be appointed for twelve months to establish the programme and be accountable to the advisory board.
• Other forms of involvement could include sub-contract projects, scholarships and team work, in addition to hosting guest speakers from interstate or overseas.
Consideration should be given to involving people from all generations. Some programs for example may involve tertiary or secondary students in urban explorations, workshops, field trips or research.
• The centre would work in collaboration with local groups which have similar aims but have the objective of developing a distinctive contribution.
We would not duplicate other programmes which have been successful in their own right including events organised by the Effective Living Centre, the Progressive Christianity Network, Pilgrim’s symposium, Wellspring, and Stillpoint.
• A notional budget for say the first year should be $50,000 to $100,000 and income for this purpose could come from grants from churches committed to the Network. One congregation may be in the position to share resources by providing a location and in-kind support for this work. A host congregation would need to be involved and enthusiastic about the above objectives and have their own distinctive continuing ministry.
Next steps
• Initial consideration by the Network at its gathering on November 27th then further feedback and negotiation with final proposal to come to the February 26th 2009 gathering.
Dean Eland
11th November 2008 elandhme@bigpond.net.au |
|
|
|
|
|
|
