Thanks Bob, that was actually the sense I was intending with my post.  I was not intending to say that Rev Albany himself was acting from impure motives.  I agree with your rewording, it would be better put that way. 

I thought Rev Albany polite, but I was uncomfortable with the public voice being given to serious allegations from anonymous people - intended or unintended (I have no personal knowledge one way or other).  I suspect that the Archbishop’s clarifying comment may have indicated similar concerns.

Regarding the Acts 29 team, Amen to what Craig and Michael have written.
I would encourage us to pray especially for Peter Tasker who is working tremendously hard and has a great heart for the people of those areas of Sydney that have been mentioned.
The more church planters the better!
I did a church plant myself in the St George area (where the local school was 70% NESB) and can testify to how hard it is.  (and as an aside, TOTALLY agree with Andrew Katay.  Starting is one thing, growing another)

We want to encourage young entrepreneurial types to have a go, I guess I just want to encourage them at the same time to be humble, wise and kingdom minded as well as eager and enthusiastic.

I think we are singing from the same song sheet… led by the golden tonsils of Bob Cameron ;-)

Dannii Willis - 16 October 2008 02:09 PM
Second, when Driscoll’s Acts 29 team start planting churches in Sydney, I wonder if they will do so among the deserts and lost tribes?
I have nothing against the Acts 29 team starting something in Australia, which I’m sure would be wonderful for the gospel, but to call parts of Sydney “the deserts and lost tribes” is offensive to the missos who are out there in real deserts reaching real lost tribes.

1) “Deserts and lost tribes” is a metaphor
2) Missionary work is hard anywhere
3) I doubt that many of said missos would be the slightest bit offended
Not one of your better posts Dannii.
Bob

In Dannii’s defence - I think she knows it is a metaphor. The issue is whether it is appropriate.
I take it she is questioning whether we can rightly call gospel work in Sydney ‘missionary’ work at all. This seems to be a very important question and gets to the heart of our problems of jumping onto the ‘missional’ bandwagon too quickly. Didn’t David Shead write a piece in the Briefing about the danger of collapsing any kind of ministry into ‘missionary work’.

David Mears - 16 October 2008 02:21 PM

I suspect that the Archbishop’s clarifying comment may have indicated similar concerns.

Agreed.

I would encourage us to pray especially for Peter Tasker who is working tremendously hard and has a great heart for the people of those areas of Sydney that have been mentioned.

I think I realised for the first time last night (I am a tad slow at times) what a smart move it was appointing a former General Secretary of the Church Missionary Society as chair of the Mission Board Strategy Committee.  He does, perhaps, know a thing or two about mission.

I think we are singing from the same song sheet… led by the golden tonsils of Bob Cameron ;-)

More like tarnished brass . . .

Bob

Mike
Dannii is a guy!  As to your substantive point, I agree wholeheartedly that we can overuse/misuse the language of mission.  But I think the language of “deserts and tribes” was being used in the context of us reaching out with the gospel into other cultures and groups amongst whom we do not currently have any ministry.
Regards,
Bob

Dannii Willis - 16 October 2008 02:09 PM

I have nothing against the Acts 29 team starting something in Australia, which I’m sure would be wonderful for the gospel, but to call parts of Sydney “the deserts and lost tribes” is offensive to the missos who are out there in real deserts reaching real lost tribes.

Hi Dannii,

Out here, we use that sort of metaphor ourselves about our area all the time.

Why, we even talk of reaching out into our ‘ghettos’ at times. Thanks for trying to defend our ‘feelings’ - but out west - and the south-west - we are not that touchy-feely - or easily offended - and we can take care of ourselves if we need to ;)

How’s your studies going ? When do you finish your exams ?

Cheers, Kevin

Dannii is a guy!

Dannii - apologies for my gender confusion - thought it was Dani (Treweek)

Michael Kellahan. - 16 October 2008 02:22 PM

In Dannii’s defence - I think she knows it is a metaphor. The issue is whether it is appropriate.
I take it she is questioning whether we can rightly call gospel work in Sydney ‘missionary’ work at all. This seems to be a very important question and gets to the heart of our problems of jumping onto the ‘missional’ bandwagon too quickly. Didn’t David Shead write a piece in the Briefing about the danger of collapsing any kind of ministry into ‘missionary work’.

I think some gospel work in Sydney definitely is ‘missionary’ work (in the sense of requiring the crossing of cultural borders) and part of the reason we have these unreached areas is that we haven’t recognised it as such in the past. And I don’t think this is only ministry to ethnic minorities.

We work in a context where the church is established in middle class communities but the gospel has barely touched the working class who live amongst them. There are no significant geographic, ethnic or language barriers and so people have assumed that what works amongst the middle class will work anywhere (including the working class). But it doesn’t because there a big socio-economic and psychological barriers. Sometimes it requires a missionary mindset and cross-cultural thinking to reach your next door neighbour even if he is the same ethnicity. This is true in Sydney too.

Having said that, I think it would be sad if we become so focused on the local mission field that we forget the “greater” (in terms of sheer numbers) needs in other places.

. . . in terms of shear numbers . . . Were you thinking of the New Zealand mission fields Phil? :-)

I take it she is questioning whether we can rightly call gospel work in Sydney ‘missionary’ work at all. This seems to be a very important question and gets to the heart of our problems of jumping onto the ‘missional’ bandwagon too quickly. Didn’t David Shead write a piece in the Briefing about the danger of collapsing any kind of ministry into ‘missionary work’.

No I definitely believe that gospel work in Sydney (and Brisbane where I live) is essential missionary work!

What I object to is this:

But I think the language of “deserts and tribes” was being used in the context of us reaching out with the gospel into other cultures and groups amongst whom we do not currently have any ministry.

For I do not believe there are any cultures and groups in Australia in which there is no Christian gospel ministry at all. If there are any, I would find it hard to believe that there wasn’t some ministry in that group in the near past. And if somehow there wasn’t, the people have far more than adequate opportunities to look outside their culture and group for the gospel.

I object to putting Sydney on the same level as any of these people groups: http://www.joshuaproject.net/progress-scale.php?scalevalue=1.0

I don’t mean to denigrate any ministry work in Australia! But to call it working in the deserts amongst lost tribes is ridiculous. Call it what it is, working amongst the working-class of Sydney, or the immigrant communities of Sydney or the selfish materialists or ...

Bob Cameron - 16 October 2008 03:02 PM

. . . in terms of shear numbers . . . Were you thinking of the New Zealand mission fields Phil? :-)

haha.

I think some gospel work in Sydney definitely is ‘missionary’ work (in the sense of requiring the crossing of cultural borders)

I’m confused as I hear people talk about being missionaries. It variously seems to mean one or more of the following:
1. crossing a cultural barrier (ethnicity/language/class/geographic etc)
2. any ministry overseas
3. certain ministry overseas
4. whatever is on a CMS postcard
5. indigenous ministry
6. individuals/families/groups being sent by a church to a different people group
7. a new way of seeing the responsibility of every Christian to look outwards rather than inwards - going to them rather than waiting for them to come to us
8. speaking the gospel to any unbeliever
9. the strategic orientation of post-Christendom church
10. whatever missional means

Does this matter?
If Katay’s suggestion is taken up I’d like to see this issue addressed - more meat needed for the missional bone. In the meantime, I am firmly persuaded it is more important to do than to blog so excuse me while I leave the laptop to visit some people (no cultural barriers will be crossed in the making of this pastoral visit ;-) )

I heard this definition last week… not sure how good it is, I’d probably want to broaden it:

A missionary is someone who does gospel work in a group (however that group is defined) who cannot support the missionary themselves.

For a useful discussion of the issues surrounding the definition of ‘mission’, have a look at Themelios 33.1 (2008) pg 46-59.

Available at http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios

Pete

The definition of ‘missionary’ is a problem and people tend to make it mean whatever they like. Some definitions are so broad as to be fairly useless.

The traditional thinking usually includes the concept of overseas or at least cross cultural work. I find this most useful as it helps distinguish it from other ministry in your own “group”. On the other hand, there are lots of people now living cross-culturally that identify themselves as missionary that I would not call missionary this since their purpose in being there is not gospel focused.

Along with missional this is a word that definitely needs careful definition and maybe revamped with the massive changes we have seen in both our society and around the world.

I think this conversation is getting off topic so I am going to shut up now.

Has anyone been reading Raj Gupta’s daily Synod blogs ? They don’t appear to have been widely publicised. Here’s the latest entry :

My Two Cents Blog - 15/10

Other days ( and past years ) are at :

MTCB link