During the period 1970-1990 Churches of Christ launched out in a number of new directions. While it is still too early to accurately appraise the achievements of these years, certain trends are evident.

      In treating this era attention will focus on the mission of the Church, at home and overseas, on re-evaluation of the stance of Churches of Christ, on the question of unity and ecumenical dialogue and on social and political issues.

      Documentation on the mission of the Church will be concerned with local pastoral ministry, overseas missions, work among Aborigines, the place of women in ministry and further developments in theological education.

1. Local Ministry
a. Church Growth
b. A National Strategy
c. Multiple Ministries and Large Churches
d. Leadership
e. Growing Diversity
f. Inner-City Ministry
g. Migrant Work
h. Darwin
2. Ministry Overseas
a. Indonesia
b. New Hebrides
c. Mission Philosophy
d. Fiji
3. Ministry among Aborigines
4. The Role of Women

1. LOCAL MINISTRY

      Subjects treated under local ministry will be Church Growth, a national strategy for evangelism, multiple ministries and large churches, leadership, ministry models, inner city and migrant work and the establishment of a church in Darwin.

      a. CHURCH GROWTH

      Church Growth concepts, developed by Donald McGavran at Fuller Theological Seminary, were introduced to Australian Churches of Christ by Win Am. Gordon Moyes, then minister at Cheltenham in Victoria, had already experimented with the approach and was to show the way forward.

      A number of books have been published by Australian Churches of Christ on Church Growth. These are G. Moyes, How To Grow An Australian Church (Melbourne, Vital, 1976); G. L. Chapman, Your Church--Where to From Here? (Melbourne, Vital, 1977); B. McMurtrie, Time Out (Melbourne, Vital, 1980).

      A number of pamphlets have also been written dealing with Church Growth. These include: K. E. Crawford, An Evaluation of Church Growth, The Pamphlet Club, Oct. 1976, No. 255; J. R. Bacik, Church Health, The Pamphlet Club, Sept. 1978, No. 275; R. Aldred, The Singles Club, The Pamphlet Club, Oct. 1977, No. 265; A. Avery, Using Local Community Resources, The Pamphlet Club, April, 1979, No. 280; R.V. Smith Mission to the Community, The Pamphlet Club, May, 1979, No. 281.

      The items included in this section, while incidental, are significant.

A.C., 1976, p. 53.

      During the first week of January the Summer School for successful Ministry was conducted in Cheltenham, Victoria. Eighty ministers covering all states of Australia attended.

      The 16 lecturers came from different States, and were men with proven ministries of their own. They discussed with the ministers every aspect of practical Church development.

      The eighty visiting ministers lived with families from the Cheltenham Church of Christ. The Chairman of the Summer School for Successful Ministry, Gordon Moyes, said "One of the keys to the extremely successful Summer School was the fact that it was located in a local church which was at work. These ministers know what it is like to work in a local church and during this conference they shared in every way in the life and witness of a local congregation. They were not removed from their local situation to some beautiful mountain retreat but were in the midst of a busy parish life. The very

fact of living with local church families helped them earth some of the ideas that they were getting day after day.

T. Heard (Ed.), Churches of Christ in Australia--Strategy for the Eighties, Department of

      Our traditional Church approach to evangelism has been to adopt the strategy of personal evangelism, and to consider what is natural and correct for those gifted in personal work, will be natural and correct for a church strategy. The personal approach has sought to lead the person to faith in Christ and hopefully to influence them to desire church membership. Many are theoretically willing to respond to Christ, but then show no interest in regular worship, e. g., Lay Institute.

      While naturally encouraging individuals to follow this personal strategy--church growth responds from a church strategy. a church strategy should seek to involve them in a regular experience of worship, while sharing with them the good news about Christ. Simply stated, reverse the usual order. Draw them to Church, then evangelise them.

1. The Australian Church

      Churches in general have a poor image in our Community. Apart from the Salvation Army, who are regarded highly for their Social Work, the church is regarded as irrelevant by most of our potential market. We must see that the passionate desire for the church of Christ to be seen as a respectable member of the 'Club of Denomination,' does us little good and some harm from the point of view of outreach. Most of those we hope to reach have probably already decided their old denomination was powerless to meet their needs. Therefore, rather than an ecumenical passion, or the old anti-other churches syndrome, I see our future in being a counter culture. An alternative to traditional denominationalism.

2. The Image of Churches of Christ

      Part of the charisma of our movement in the early years was its presentation of 'uncluttered Christianity.' No formal creeds, no prayer book, no litany. It was a straightforward, common sense approach to the christian faith. Even today the benefits of this background are evident. People discovering our churches still are impressed by the friendliness of our congregations and by the fact that they can easily follow our worship services.

      However to a large extent that 'uncluttered image' has gone. We found ourselves with an unwritten, but carefully followed litany, the fact of which could be observed Sundays at 11.00 a.m. almost anywhere people met. The wording was the same even to some of our meaningless cliches.

      In 1975-76 I called on 1800 homes in an outer Melbourne suburb. The population was the type of sociological mix that we do best with. In only three homes did I find someone with a healthy, positive image of Churches of Christ. More than half had not heard of us or they imagined we were a cult. Most of the remainder knew us as the group that did not 'smoke, drink or dance.'

1. Strategy--Australia wide

      We must see ourselves as having the potential to become a great Australian church. To reach Australians in a way unknown to any current religious group. For this to begin to happen we must begin to convince two groups. Our own membership has been fed for twenty years with a feeling that we have no future as a separate group. That must be counteracted. Then, we must convey a positive IMAGE of our movement to the non-churches members of the Australian Community.

      a) Television--I would like to see a T.V. campaign of short duration which set our image before the community. It should present us as a people whose worship style would best attract and satisfy the average Australian. It is a tragedy that after 143 years in Australia we are still unknown to possibly half

the population. An even greater tragedy is that this could have been rectified in one week through T.V. For less than the price of one church complex, we could accomplish what our movement has not accomplished in almost a century and a half.

      b) Logo--The emblem logo of the Uniting Church has had a marvellous effect upon many of its members. Could we commission a professional to design a logo that could portray our reason for existence? This could project our renewed image. This simple promotion would have its greatest effect upon our membership. But surely our goal is to motivate our membership so they move from being customers and become sales representatives. A logo could be a psychological stimulant, a rallying point for some of our more energetic and enthusiastic people.

      c) Magazine--We should produce a publication, in the form of a multi-colour magazine. This would be a once only publication. Its primary aim would be for us to encourage our members to purchase it and give it to interested friends. While the magazine would mainly present our renewed image, it should also have articles of interest like 'coping with pressure,' 'diet,' 'positive thinking.'

2. The Local Church

      I contend that for a church to see a significant growth it should reverse the usual order. That is, we must draw people into a regular worship experience and against that background lead them to a personal faith in the ONE they experience in worship. Within the Australian Community there is a great number of people who already love God. They believe in Him and pray to Him. Our difficulty is not so much convincing He exists or that they should honour Him. It is that they should love the Church. Our greatest growth may come from the group who believe in God but reject the Church because they have not responded to the traditional denominations. In our evangelism we have concentrated upon the 'New Birth' and have tended to see individuals as totally without God before this experience. Surely there is also a 'conception' and a period of development before this 'birth.' Let us seek to draw these spiritually pregnant individuals into the warmth of Christian fellowship and thus provide for a safer birth. I suggest the following strategy.

(a) SET OUR HOUSE IN ORDER

      Little will be gained by drawing crowds into the church services until we have remodelled the church. Unless we free ourselves from unnecessary shackles of traditionalism we will not meet their needs. We must face the fact that traditional churches of Christ Services relate to few individuals within the Community and to less and less of our own people.

      i) Major in Worship--Why do so many of our churches seek to be best known for something other than Worship? Let us not be best known for Community Aid or for Youth Work. May we be best known as a place for worship and to be strengthened. Let us carefully design services which are neither traditional stereotypes nor educational experiments. We need services which provide a 'worship experience' and that have the New Testament ingredients for worship within a relaxed and relevant format.

      ii) Selling Point--The usual mistake churches make in advertising is that they overlook the basic law of advertising. They tend to advertise the 'product' rather than 'what the product will do for the person.' We need to examine the felt needs of our target group and demonstrate to them how faith and worship can help to meet their needs.

      iii) In everything we address to the community these two points should be in mind. a) The therapeutic value of worship. 'Experience the sheer relaxation of an hour spent in the Worship of God.' b) Create the feeling of a strong Church. A church that YOU NEED rather than one that NEEDS YOU for survival.

(b) EVANGELISM

      Once we have men and women experiencing God in Worship it is not a difficult task to use the usual strategy of personal evangelism to lead them to Christ. A decade ago I relied on preaching people to the front, then I baptised 8-12 persons a year. Since I have learned to confidently share Christ in homes I baptise 30-40 persons a year.

A.C., 1983, p. 389.

      Some of our leaders are still talking about "Church Growth." Others have dismissed "The Church Growth Movement" as having been a useful shot in the arm to jolt us out of the stalemate of the sixties, but like all gimmicks, to be replaced by the latest one.

      There are some convincing arguments against the church growth movement, and we look at them here.

The Numbers Game

      The church growth movement has played the numbers game and statistics have appeared to be more important than people. We have even been told by the experts to put less fruitful aspects of mission into the too hard basket and to spend our time where the fish are nibbling (to change the metaphor).

      Yet Luke played the numbers game when he totted up the converts on Pentecost Sunday. I believe that even the dourest of us would have been excited about 3000 baptisms, because after all, numbers are people. I even find that ministers and leaders who play the numbers game are usually in churches where people are being looked after and cared for, and that is why they have joined, maybe in spite of the statistics jugglers.

Just Another U.S. Gimmick

      The church growth movement came from the U.S.A. and is just another of their clever gimmicks. We Australians are not ones for gimmicks except in sport and business, and advertising and in our schools and homes.

      I'm not so hot on gimmicks myself, except that I know that Paul favoured them. In 1 Corinthians 9:22 he talks about being all things to all men so that by all means he might save some. He used the "unknown god" gimmick to get through to the Areopagites and the head shaving gimmick to reach the Jews.

      I suppose if gimmicks reach people when nothing else does we need to be a little less squeamish about them.

More Concerned with Full Collection Plates

      The church growth movement has been accused of being more concerned about full pews and collection plates than for people. I actually heard a church growth expert tell us that if we spent a lot of money on publicity we would recoup our money in the offerings of people attracted by it.

      Paul also had the problem of people preaching the gospel from bad motives, but he rejoiced that the gospel was being preached (Philippians 1:15-18). Perhaps only the .most purely motivated of us should throw stones at those who have one eye on saving people and the other on the collection bags.

Not Sent to Grow Churches but to Save Souls

      Some evangelicals have unexpectedly opposed the church growth movement, saying that we are not sent to grow churches but to save souls. The problem for these people is that "you can't have one without the other." The Lord has a habit of adding to the church those who are being saved (Acts 2:47).

What Do We Mean by Church Growth?

      Probably a simple definition of terms will clarify the situation. The church is the body of Christ and consists of people who, in their lives, accept him as head of the body. The Holy Spirit is the life of the body.

      Those who are accepting Jesus Christ as Lord of their lives and are thus filled with his Spirit, are growing people (See 2 Cor. 5:17). We could call this kind of growth qualitative growth. It is what God is doing within lives and personalities. And it just so happens that in most places (but not all) where such qualitative growth is taking place more people are being added to the church. Numerical growth may be called quantitative growth. Usually qualitative growth leads to quantitative growth.

      1. Churches where Christ is Lord and his Spirit the dynamic, are fired with new life. People tend to be attracted to lively churches.

      2. Because Spirit filled churches are compassionate churches, they reach out to those who have lost the way. People are attracted to warm, caring, accepting churches.

      3. There is something about the worship of such churches. It may be traditional or it may be contemporary, but people get the feel of the presence of God in it.

A Conclusion

      I started with arguments against church growth, but we are not going to stop it. Wherever Christ is truly head of any part of the body there will be both qualitative and quantitative growth. It is happening spectacularly in Asia, Africa and parts of South America. No doubt it will happen here!

      b. A NATIONAL STRATEGY

      A National Conference on Evangelism was held at Monbulk from March 7-10, 1980. Discussion papers for this conference, compiled by Ted Heard, were published as Churches of Christ in Australia: Strategy for the Eighties. The article included in this section reports briefly on the conference.

      The Victorian Conference had earlier devised a "Strategy for the Seventies." This is detailed in A Strategy for the Seventies, Pamphlet Club, Oct. 1971, No. 198.

      More recently, South Australia, Western Australia, and individuals and churches in other States have drawn on the insights of Kennon Callaham, who has placed considerable emphasis on care and compassion in sharing the message of the gospel with the world.

A.C., 1980, p. 161.

      After three intensive days of consultation and planning, delegates to the National Evangelism Conference left Monbulk acclaiming the Conference as an outstanding success.

REPRESENTATIVES

      Each State and Territory was represented at the conference which was held March 7-10. Representatives were selected by each State to give a balance of men and women, ministers and lay people. All the representatives have an interest or responsibility for evangelism at a local level, state or national level. A feature of the conference was the participation of Federal Department representatives including the "Australian Christian" College of the Bible, Literature, Christian Education, Aborigines and Overseas Missions.

CLIMAX

      The conference climaxed over a year of planning by State Home Missions Departments.

      The third day of the conference was spent in developing strategies at a national level. This was one of the most exciting aspects of the conference which as a whole was characterised by a spirit of unity and commitment to advancing our work throughout Australia. Ideas listed for consideration and action at a national level included such matters as a call to prayer, nation-wide Bible study, development of a logo, planning for national advertising, a stimulus to evangelism and the church growth emphasis, national and state goal setting and support for Aboriginal evangelism which is in a significant period of development. These and numerous other issues will be receiving attention in the next few months. A full report of conference proceedings and recommendations will be presented at Federal Conference.

      c. MULTIPLE MINISTRIES AND LARGE CHURCHES

      Under the influence of Church Growth concepts larger churches and others with significant potential for growth began developing multiple ministries. What some saw a "the cult of bigness" brought with it certain strains.

      Material dealing with multiple ministries, but not included in this segment, will be found in Our Team Ministry at Brighton, The Pamphlet Club, Aug. 1976, No. 253.

A.C., 1979, Feb. 3, p. 8.

To the Editor,

      Over twelve months ago I wrote a letter of concern to the "A.C." about the increasing trend in our churches towards multiple ministries. No-one refuted the basic point of that letter. Since then this trend has continued unabated. What we are now witnessing is the increasing concentration of scarce, trained manpower into a relatively few normally city churches while many of the country churches which desperately need the services of a full time pastor are continually passed by. Every trained minister who goes as a second or even third minister to a city church is one less person available to those churches without any minister. This point is indisputable. Even many of our College exit students are caught up in this trend.

      We are continually told by these fortunate churches with multiple ministries that the second minister enables specialisation of function to then take place. Why can't the lay people be trained for these functions? We are also told that large churches 'need' two ministers. My knowledge of the history of our churches does not suggest that many of our large churches in past years had multiple ministries.

      Present church structure and organisation is closely paralleling that of business organisation in the twentieth century--an increasing concentration of power and resources in fewer and fewer churches. The smaller churches are left to struggle along on their own and often to fizzle out. Is this survival of the fittest?

      Where are the men in our brotherhood with a vision and a call for a ministry among our smaller country churches?

--K. C. Dundas, N.S.W.      

The Pamphlet Club, April, 1983, No. 320.

      1. The minister sat in the lounge room, feeling depressed and angry. He listened to the couple explaining why they were transferring their membership to the large Church two miles away. It was just that they had to find a Church with an active Youth Group, otherwise their young people would be lost to the Church forever. The minister had spent frustrating hours trying to form a Youth Group to hold this and two other similar families. Now they would join the six other members who had left because the large Church had the resources for a Youth Minister.

      2. The Church Secretary looked at the Conference Handbook with anger. Here he was trying to organise visiting speakers and their neighbouring Church of Christ had two ministers. Why should any Church be allowed to monopolise manpower like that? Surely the Brotherhood should organise ministry appointments better than that.

      3. Another young minister thinks he has timed his move perfectly. He hears that the large Church has just lost its minister. If he places his name before the Advisory Department now he might just be approached and thus given his long sought "promotion."

      4. The Conference Official looks at the financial returns from the Churches. The large Church at "---------" hasn't increased its Brotherhood offering for the past three years and the amount was still only 13,000 pounds a year. Why did they need to spend all that money on office buildings? What about their wider responsibilities?

      The attitudes raised in each of these situations demonstrate the array of misunderstandings that can often exist about the larger Church. For the sake of clarity, let's define as "large" a Church with more than 200 attending worship. There are only four of these in the Victorian Tasmanian Conference.

      In our denominational and national setting the large Church is a rare institution and needs to explain itself to the Brotherhood. This article is such an attempt, reflecting a mixture of personal experience and the wisdom of Lyle Schaller, a leading Church consultant in the U.S.A.

      Large Churches are misunderstood by themselves and others because it is not realised that the large Church is not a bigger version of a small Church. It is a different type of institution. It has different needs and its behaviour should not be judged by reference to smaller Churches.

MINISTRY NEEDS

      The minister of the larger Church should not be one who has received promotion for a job "well done." He is usually a person who can bring different gifts to the leadership of the Church. There is greater reliance on him to be the visionary and planner, as with large numbers the Church cannot maintain participant forms of planning. He becomes the supporter and encourager of the large network of volunteers rather than trying to do it all himself. He may take on a greater responsibility for planning worship as he knows that sloppy worship is less tolerated in a larger Church. He assumes a more positive leadership style. Place this type of minister in a smaller Church and there could be a bad mix. Place the efficient pastoral type in a large Church and again there could be a bad mix.

      And why a ministry team? He knows it is pointless trying to minister to 600 worshippers by himself. He tries to organise volunteers to do some of it for him but there is a limit to how many volunteers he can maintain. He cannot keep up personal contact with a large family and even routine pastoral demands become too much. And so a team is formed. Does he help choose a team that is not a threat to his abilities? If he did he would be spending a lot of time covering up the inadequacies of the team and the advantages of a team situation would be lost. Rather the Church seeks out a team that would complement the weaknesses of the senior minister, and yet can work harmoniously with the overall aims of the Church.

      Is such a team justified when other Churches haven't a minister at all? Yes. If it is justified for a Church of 100 to have one minister, it is justified for a Church of 300 to have two or a Church of 500 to have three. People are people, regardless of whether they belong to a large Church or not. If a large Church does without adequate staff, as many people and programmes would be neglected as a Church in a solo ministry situation.

      A team ministry works just as hard as any diligent solo minister. The difference is that they can work more effectively because they can operate in more defined areas.

THE ATTRACTION OF A LARGE CHURCH

      There are some who would abhor the idea of being swallowed up in a large mass of people and would be frustrated at the limited involvement in a larger Church. Others prefer the limited involvement and choose the larger Church because of a greater variety of programmes and resources available. The larger Church seems more able to minister to the needs of the community and has the resources to advertise its presence to the community. It is able to maintain an inspiring standard of worship.

      But there are trade-offs. In a large Church you never know everybody in the congregation. Your influence on decision-making processes is limited. You generally only see the minister in your home in times of illness or crisis. You are more reluctant to volunteer because you feel sure that somebody else will do the job.

      It is sad for the smaller Church to see some families opting for the larger congregation. Families do not leave a Church without making that decision at some personal cost. However, we must rejoice that the large Church can reach families and individuals who never have known life in Christ and can also help some families retain an active link with the Christian Church. On the other hand, there are families in larger congregations that transfer to small Churches because they desire increased involvement.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE OTHERS?

      Surely the large Church has a responsibility to the Brotherhood and should be supplying resources of personnel and finance to the Brotherhood and other Christian institutions?

      Most certainly. It must maintain a world view of its ministry and must share its blessings with Churches and Missions that are not as "wealthy."

      The track record of larger Churches has been reasonably good so far as financial support of the wider Church is concerned. Large percentages of the budget are allocated to "others" and the Brotherhood would barely survive without such support. However, let us again plead for understanding as far as the larger Church's finances are concerned.

      1. A part of the larger Church's responsibility to the Brotherhood is to be a vital, healthy growing Church. The modern large Church must not put too low a ceiling on its size or assume that decline is natural because the composition of the local community changes. It has a greater responsibility to be a stronger Christian witness in its local community, and if it does spend money on ministry and outreach, it does so in response to the great commission. It is not a matter of "spending money on yourself." It is a matter of using resources for significant community service in the local community. This is as much "giving for others" as supporting (for example) the Department of Community Care.

      2. The larger Church will (or should) spend more money on administration than a smaller Church. It cannot rely on the "grapevine" to keep members informed of what is going on. The Church Bulletin will be larger, because, with more than forty auxiliaries in action, more space is needed. 400-500 copies will be printed. Unable to personally tell every absentee that they were missed, a copy of the Church Paper is posted to each absentee. Even the normal organisation of Church Social Dinners will cost far

more in a larger Church because of the time, paper and postage. It takes more time and energy just to keep the member informed of what the programme of the Church is all about.

      3. If a large Church invests in administration support, it can be investing in efficiency. It is important that the ministers' offices be visible land accessible land yet "protected" by a pleasant receptionist. This is not a "luxury," but a way of ensuring that the ministry can be more effective.

      I can understand the resentment and frustrations about the "big" Church. I felt that way when I was a minister of a forty member Church at South Melbourne. However, a lot of this resentment is due to basic misunderstandings about the nature of large Churches.

      So there is a dual plea in all of this. A plea for understanding that the large Church is not wealthy, extravagant, nor a monster gobbling up members of smaller Churches. It is a different type of institution and cannot be organised along the same lines as a smaller Church.

      The second part of this plea is to the large Churches. They must continue to support and understand the ministry of smaller Churches, but they must also "act their size." If they continue to limit the size of ministry to a solo situation, fail to provide him with adequate secretarial support, or continue to imagine that "mission" only occurs in the tropics, then we have failed to take advantage of the opportunities of the large Church.

      Finally, consider the words of Lyle Schaller.

      "As a parish becomes more sensitive to the needs of people and the differences among people, the program and ministry of that congregation becomes more complex."^*

Editorial, A.C., 1985.

      It seems to me that such circumstances as environment, population, locality, leadership gifts and equipment frequently determine the growth of a congregation. It is not that the larger churches are the only ones preaching the true gospel or that they have monopoly of the Holy Spirit, while the smaller churches are small because they preach the unpopular message of repentance or will not compromise doctrinal purity or disdain American church commercialism.

      There is nothing to be gained by castigating churches for being too large or too small. It is no credit to a minister that a church is big and no disgrace if it is small. It is God who gives the increase and it is the Lord who adds to the church those who are being saved.

FAITHFULNESS

      The important thing is for churches, in whatever circumstances to be faithful to their biblical, God-given mission. When this happens some of them will grow phenomenally, some may grow more slowly, and some may find it wiser to pool their resources with another church or churches in order to fulfil God's mission. The biblical mission of the church comprises worship, evangelism, pastoral care, teaching and community service. These should be the continuing items on the agendas of elders' and deacons' meetings and church business meetings. These are the business of the church. Churches are not called to be big or small but to be faithful in these activities.

      d. LEADERSHIP

      In July 1986 Ron Elbourne, senior minister of the Glen Waverley Church, in Melbourne, raised the issue of leadership, of ministers giving a strong lead in local congregations. This American, Church Growth emphasis was at variance with the traditional concept of ministry in Churches of Christ. His article provoked a considerable reaction.

      Other material dealing with the question of leadership includes: G. Gilmour, Christian Leadership--Crisis or Challenge, The Pamphlet Club, Oct. 1968, No. 162; Report of the Commission on Eldership, The Pamphlet Club, Nov. 1969, No. 175; G. Powell, The Eldership The Pamphlet Club, Sept, 1981, No. 305; K. W. Farmer, Christian Leadership, The Pamphlet Club, Sept. 1983, No. 325.

      As Churches of Christ moved towards 1990, greater emphasis was given to the issue of leadership. Ian Allsop, a lecturer at the Churches of Christ Theological College at Mulgrave, till his appointment as Secretary of the Federal Conference and Secretary of the Victorian-Tasmanian Conference in 1991, has been working on a Ph.D on the subject of the degree to which personal and corporate values influence decision-making.

A.C., 1986, p. 274.

      One of God's greatest gifts to the church is that of leadership. In an era where Churches of Christ are "rediscovering "the gifts of the Spirit, leadership is a key gift which appears to be overlooked We have confused mutual ministry with mutual leadership, which is a dangerous mistake. In a recent study tour of the United States 1 discovered that the growing churches had a clearly recognized leader. He is the minister, or senior minister if the church has multiple staff.

Minister as Leaders

      Dr. Herman Ridder, President of Garden Grove Community Church, states emphatically. "It is vital that the leader, the senior minister, be oriented to autonomy and entrepreneurship. If he is tied into democracy he is plotting a course for disaster. Value-driven leadership is a necessity . . . The pastor is important in leadership, even though spiritual gifts are spread through the Body. The pastor determines whether or not the church 'goes,' grows and is dynamic . . . The pastor must not surrender leadership to any group of people, to any problem, nor to any other force. Someone must marshal the troops, and that is the task of the pastor."

Leadership Style

      Basically there are two leadership styles.

      1. The Transactional Leader acts on the principle that he is called and paid to preach, visit and conduct weddings and funerals. So that is what he does. This is a maintenance ministry, maintaining the status quo. Usually, this minister/leader is dearly loved by the congregation, but the church does not make much progress in growth.

      2. The Transformational Leader changes the whole situation. He introduces dynamics that change the status quo. This is an intentional intervention in the way that we "have always done things." This minister/leader is not loved by all members of his congregation. He is an "uncomfortable" influence to have around! But, if followed, he enables the church to grow. It seems to me that in Churches of Christ we have majored far more on transactional leadership than transformational leadership.

Leadership Cost

      The essential quality is the willingness to be a leader--to actually lead, with the price of criticism and misunderstanding which that involves. This means having a clear call of God, confirmed in a long-term ministry, and expressed with deep convictions. Such a leader must have some kind of vision of tomorrow. He knows how to translate that vision into goals. These visions need to be "people-centred" (particularly on the unchurched), God-honouring and not ego-centred.

Leadership Focus

My plea in this article is for us, as a people, to search the Scripture for the divine pattern of leadership in our churches. We need God-given leadership to provide direction, harness resources, and challenge and motivate our people. Such leadership creates an atmosphere of great expectation in which God can achieve marvellous things.

A.C., 1968, pp. 328-329.

To the Editor,

      Putting people in boxes with superficial labels has always been a questionable exercise, and I'm sorry that Ron Elbourne did this in his article on "Leadership." ("A.C." July 5).

      I do not know a minister who would fit neatly into the box Ron labels "Transactional." Certainly we express our gifts in different ways and some have a greater understanding of Jesus' emphasis on humility and servanthood than others.

      A superficial evaluation of their ministry in terms of "numbers" may suggest that theirs is a "maintenance" ministry, but effective maintenance in some situations may reflect greater effort, dedication and leadership skills than we see in some areas of obvious growth potential.

      On "the cost of leadership" Ron makes some good points, as long as we recognise that criticism and misunderstanding may sometimes indicate lack of skills, sensitivity and love rather than leadership strengths; that lack of popularity does not necessarily indicate leadership strength and that longer ministries may represent the same unwillingness to change that Ron is concerned about.

      I'm glad Ron recognises the need for our vision for tomorrow to be "people-centred:" We need to reach out to the "unchurched" in love, but another 618 lost to our churches through roll revision (125 more than we baptised), suggests an equal need to "reach in" in love as well.

      The Great Commission (Matt. 28:19-20) has not superseded the Great Commandment (John 13:34).

--Keith Milne, Boronia, Vic.      

To the Editor,

      The guest editorial "The Importance of Leadership" ("A.C." July 5) has stirred me.

      If I were the minister of a local congregation I'd be greatly concerned to see myself neatly categorised as either a transactional or a transformational leader.

      As a member of a local congregation I certainly don't wish to be one of the troops whom the minister is to marshal. It reminds me far too much of my regimented days doing national service.

      What I desire is a minister who can encourage me in my growth in Christ and in mission to his world.

      In the article there is a plea for us to search the scriptures for "the divine pattern of leadership in our churches." Thankfully the scriptures were written long before the modern enthusiasm for "managerial models."

      The Bible pre-eminently tells of the one whom God sent to this world. His life was a model of the leader as servant (see Phil. 2:5-11).

      If servant leadership is the model then the whole hierarchical model of management is dealt a death blow. The benevolent or malevolent dictator is banished. As God's people we are liberated to live our lives under the Lordship of Christ. Christ alone is the transformational leader who enables us to discover the path to life.

      You may have difficulties with my model of leadership. That's fine. Thankfully we are not saved by our leadership style. Sometimes God uses us in spite of it.

--George Mathieson (S.A.).      

A.C., 1968, p. 356-357.

To the Editor,

      I am confused. The Oxford Dictionary definition of entrepreneur is "director of a public musical institution," or "one who gets up entertainments."

      Recently, a highly respected elder statesman in our Australian Brotherhood, L. J. Butler, expressed concern at some of the entrepreneurial methods promoting the forthcoming Australian visit of the Pope.("A.C.," June 21).

      Senator Don Chipp, on the eve of his retirement from active politics questioned the entrepreneurial methods of some business magnates whose "achievements were merely the rearrangement of others' assets to benefit themselves," ("Advertiser," June 28) analogous with "sheep-stealing?"

      L. L. Hoare, Senior Visiting Surgeon to the Royal Adelaide Hospital referred to the emergence of "entrepreneurial medicine," and considered that the "taxpayer should not be happy about a business which, no matter how much service it provided, made so much profit it could pay $6 million for a football team" ("Advertiser," July 4), a comment on financial stewardship!"

      Finally, a recent Guest Editorial ("A.C." July 5) endorses the concept of "autonomy and entrepreneurship" in the biblically questionable "transformational leadership" model (see Philippians 2:511, Luke 22:25-27).

      Are we in danger of surrendering our birthright for a bowl of bean soup, or of sacrificing long-term integrity for instant apparent success?

--Keith Crowley MB, BS, BSc, FRCPA (Marion, S.A.).      

To the Editor,

      As the democratically elected officers of the Boronia congregation, we wish to make the following response to the Guest Editorial ("A.C:' July 5), headed "The Importance of Leadership."

      We:

      --support the right of congregations to order their church life according to their understanding of the principles and practices of the New Testament;

      --disagree with the assertion that the autocratic model of leadership/ministry is always effective and productive;

      --re-affirm our preference for team-ministry based on the diversity/equality model of 1 Cor. 12 and Gal. 3:28, and our confidence in our own team-ministry (both man and women) to work effectively as equals for the total growth of our congregation;

      --call on future writers on the subject to recognise the significant role of women in leadership/ministry in our churches;

      --invite our fellow congregations to engage in an informal, fully representative, and objective analysis of effective church leadership through the church media and agencies, and by open, balanced and nondiscriminatory discussions at State and Federal Conferences using, for example, Graeme Chapman's excellent pamphlet "Ministry Models."

      This statement was agreed to unanimously at the July Meeting of the Boronia Church Board.

--John Bird      
Chairman of the Board, (Boronia, Vic.).      

      e. GROWING DIVERSITY

      During the years 1970-1990 considerable diversity in local ministry styles developed. The article included in this documentation was an attempt at analysing this diversity.

      Another pamphlet probing changes in ministry style was: Issues of Ministry, The Pamphlet Club, Aug. 1983, No. 324.

      Growth in diversity was indicative of a developing complexity in ministry, with its attendant strain on ministers. Two reports on ministry, ministers and conference structures were commissioned in Victoria-Tasmania, resulting in the Bauma and Phelan reports.

      Dr Bill Tabbernee during this period also edited a Victorian Council of Churches publication, Ministry in Australian Churches [Melbourne, JBCE, 1987]

The Pamphlet Club, April-May, 1982, No. 310/311.

      Over the past ten years a variety of ministry styles have emerged within Churches of Christ. This diversity has resulted from the challenge of local situations and the imitation of ministry models, which, effective elsewhere, Were seen to be suited to the distinctive ethos of our Churches.

      The time has come for us to take stock, to evaluate the different models and to see where we are heed.

      Twenty years ago we would not have been talking about ministry models. We knew only one pattern. While some ministers and churches, by regarding difficulties as challenges, were more enterprising and innovative than others, they nevertheless operated within the established pattern. They taught in the a.m. service, evangelized on Sunday evenings, and, during the week assiduously visited members and contacts, offering what practical help they could.

      It was inevitable that America would provide the impetus for the development of a variety of ministry styles. Australians don't take kindly to those who do things differently, are highly individual, or distinguish themselves from their fellows. We lop the tall poppies. America, by contrast, influenced by a frontier tradition of individualism, welcomes innovation and regards competition as the spice of life. The successful are heroes and their methods are copied. That we have recently been influenced by American patterns is related to the increasing Americanization of our society, in which T.V. and overseas travel have played a part. It is also related to the growing pluralism of Australian society and its ability to accommodate widely divergent beliefs and structures.

      In the past, theological education has concentrated on equipping ministry candidates to preach the gospel, to teach the converted, to pastor the flock, and to educate the young in the way of Christ. Our approach has been mainly academic. This does not mean that we have neglected practical training. In the latter area we have concentrated on developing preaching skills, and, until recently, given slightly less attention to counselling and church organization.

      Today it is becoming increasingly recognized, at least among recent graduates, that a considerable acquaintance with the ministry models available to us is as necessary a preparation for ministry as was their theological education. The time has come for us as a brotherhood to give attention to this issue. We need to analyse the different ministry styles and relate them to our understanding of the gospel and to the theological traditions of our Movement. It is also important for us to investigate the question of whether the increasing variety of ministry styles is inevitable or beneficial. If our answer to that question is affirmative then we will need to guide ministers and students, in the light of their personalities and gifts, in the selection of appropriate models.

      In this analysis of ministry models we will not concentrate on the largest or fastest growing churches in Australia, America or elsewhere. We will look at a more basic question, i. e., at the different, and sometimes rival, philosophies of ministry that underlie different ministry styles. We will be looking at theological models.

      The distinction made between various models of ministry should not be taken to imply that there is no overlapping. It is also recognized that ministers and churches are usually influenced by more than one model, and copy from a number.

      We shall, in this review, focus on five distinctive styles: the traditional model, the church-growth model, the social action model, the charismatic model and the relational model.

A. THE TRADITIONAL MODEL

      The traditional model, that ministry style with which those of us who are older are most familiar, views ministry as a "spiritual" enterprise, i. e., as the business of ministering to the spirit of man. The major concern of the preacher, who would confess to having been called by God, is to save souls.

      The traditional model has been based on a conservative, sometimes fundamentalist, attitude towards the Scriptures. The Bible is seen as the Word of God and essential to the life of the Christian and the Church. Its message is able to transform lives, and, through the regeneration of individuals, to influence society.

      The style of leadership, expected and given, on the basis of understandings inherent in this model, has been "spiritual" rather than organizational or administrative. It has been a leadership based on example. The minister has been looked to give a lead in holy living and consecrated service.

      At its best this model has fostered a devotion to Jesus, a commitment to his way of life and a love of the Scriptures. It has resulted in the development of personal integrity, decency and a simple winsomeness. It has also fostered a commitment to the people of God and to evangelism. However, despite these undoubted credits, there are a number of dysfunctions associated with this approach.

      The first of these relates to the increasing inappropriateness of the approach for today's world. It is far more difficult nowadays, using this model, to achieve personal and numerical growth, than it was even twenty years ago. This may not be obvious at first sight. Some churches that continue to operate on the basis of the traditional model are growing. In many such cases, however, though admittedly not in all, their growth results from picking up the disenchanted from other churches, individuals who do not

take easily to change and who are disoriented by innovations introduced into churches with which they have been associated.

      One of the assumptions behind the traditional approach is that where the message of the gospel is faithfully preached people will be attracted and won. There is a considerable element of truth in this. Where Jesus is preached He will attract those who are searching and open to God. It also has the advantage of appealing to those who are searching for certainties in a world of change. However, the argument that the way to draw crowds is to faithfully proclaim the Word in the style of yesterday is based on a misunderstanding. Today is not yesterday. Times are different. The conditions that made the great pulpiteering of the late nineteenth century possible are gone, i. e., the leisurely pace of life, the relative uniformity in attitudes and the potential entertainment value of politicians and preachers. We live in a different world. Church attendance and the age of great preaching peaked at 1870 and has generally been on the decline ever since. Furthermore, an entertainment industry has taken over from the preacher and politician and there is decreasing agreement on basic values. In addition to this, it has to be admitted that the appeal of many of the great preachers was due as much to their personal charisma and oratorical ability as their faithful proclamation of the Word. While charisma will still draw a crowd, what will win, hold and change individuals in our day, what men and women are increasingly responding to, is warmth, acceptance, caring and involvement in their pain.

      Comment on the increasing ineffectiveness of the traditional model has concentrated on an important, but preliminary issue. It is necessary now to focus on more inherent and serious dysfunctions.

      The traditional model has been in vogue in evangelical circles for several centuries. The following comments relate, not so much to particular or immediate issues, but rather to what this model has to say on what Christianity is about.

      First, the traditional approach has tended to regard revelation as propositional, i. e., God has made certain statements about Himself and about how we are to live. The Bible, however, is less a collection of propositions and statements and more a record of God's revelation of Himself in history, a record of His mighty acts.

      Then again, according to the traditional model, salvation has been seen by many to be the equivalent of purchasing a ticket to heaven. By contrast, scholars today are insistent that the salvation of which Jesus spoke was a personal wholeness, which, while it involved reconciliation with God and eternal bliss, was, to begin with, a very this-worldly business. Although the limited other-worldly view of salvation associated with the traditional model appealed, it denied to many the experience of personal growth the gospel was intended to foster, and, by concentrating the attention of individuals on securing for themselves a passage to heaven, reinforced the inherent selfishness of human nature which Jesus wished us to overcome.

      While those schooled in the traditional approach argued that salvation came by faith, this faith was often unconsciously equated with knowledge, i. e., the knowledge of and acceptance of certain doctrines regarding Christ in the experience of many it was little more than mental assent to revelational propositions. By contrast, the faith spoken of in the New Testament was a matter of trusting oneself to Jesus, "of entering into a personal relationship with Him.

      Many raised on the traditional model have a view of God, consistent with the way they conceive of revelation, salvation and faith, which appears to be seriously at variance with the God whom Jesus revealed. They regard His holiness, which is interpreted as His inability to tolerate evil, as His most distinguishing characteristic. Furthermore, it is sometimes felt that He is angered by the least disaffection among His subjects. The New Testament concept of God, as a loving Father, who loves us even in our alienation, has been overlooked or displaced. This austere view some have of God is undoubtedly influenced, not only by a theological tradition perpetuated by folkways associated with the traditional model, but also by childhood experiences, by parents requiring children to measure up before they are loved, by parental cruelty, and by some people, affected by unresolved guilt, who are angry with themselves but don't know it and unconsciously project the anger onto a God figure outside themselves whom they take to be angry with them.

      It was also to be admitted that preachers, tutored in the traditional theology, have sometimes insinuated that God, whom they felt to be primarily concerned with His own freedom from defilement, would not accept people before they exercised faith, repented, confessed their sins and were baptised. In contrast to this, Jesus clearly indicated that God accepts and loves us as we are. He accepts us as O.K. Of course He wants to change us, and that principally for our benefit, but He realises that it is only by accepting us that we can be freed up sufficiently to be able to change. Lazarus is the obvious example here. No sooner had Jesus accepted him, by publicly identifying Himself with him, than the hated tax collector talked about returning what he had extorted and sharing his fortune with the poor.

      One of the things that most disturbs me about many who operate within the traditional model is that they use a combination of fear and guilt to cajole and scare people into making some response to God, or to the concocted image they are setting forth as God. While some people need to be faced up with the fact that they have done wrong and with its consequences, we should avoid playing on fear and guilt in our preaching. This was not Jesus' way. It was certainly not his approach with those who were

hurting, those suffering from morbid guilt or exaggerated fear. Those He pummeled were self-righteous Pharisees, who, though generally good-living, were unable to admit to wrong, which they rationalized away. These needed to admit their guilt before they were in a position to accept His acceptance of them.

      One way of determining the effectiveness of any philosophy of ministry is to study its effect on the lives of those it has nurtured. If being a Christian is mainly concerned with relating to God, ourselves and others, it has to be confessed that the traditional approach has often failed, and that, because of understandings implicit in it.

      It is sad to admit that the God worshipped by many raised on the traditional model is the figment of an unhealthy imagination, a stern and unrelenting being, who has no connection with the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

      The same people have as many problems relating to themselves. More often that not this is because they confuse humility with self abasement. They have difficulty accepting and forgetting themselves, which, according to Paul, is the essence of true humility. Instead of soberly estimating their strengths and weaknesses, and accepting the fact that God accepts them this way, they are torn between contrary emotions. Their personalities, which God has fashioned, in order to function healthily, require them to feel positive about themselves. Because they are unable to accept that God accepts them as O.K. as they are, in order to accept themselves, they unconsciously fossick about in search of personal successes. Where these are scarce or can't be found, imagination distorts reality to produce such. However, when they become conscious that they are thinking well of themselves, they mistake self-acceptance for the pride God abominates, whip themselves and push the positive feelings back into the unconscious. They end up loathing, rather than loving, hiding from, rather than coming into contact with themselves.

      It is inevitable that those who have difficulty relating to God will have difficulty relating to themselves. It is equally certain that those who have difficulty relating to God and themselves will have difficulty relating to others. Because they are not in contact with themselves they face two difficulties. First, the self that is them they are not in contact with. What they are in contact with is their persona, a surface self resulting from the roles they play in daily life, e. g., husband, father, businessman. Second, they have equal, if not more, difficulty discovering the real selves that are others, because they attend merely to externals.

      If we can't reach into the lives of others we can neither discover nor feel their hurts. Still less can we effectively minister to them. This inability is often associated with a judgmental spirit, which similarly concentrates wholly on externals. Just as empathy abates criticism, the more critical' and judgmental we are the less we are able to empathize. Furthermore, criticism results, not merely from concentrating on externals, but from an inability to accept oneself. This operates in at least two ways.

      Sometimes, because we are unable to accept ourselves, as God does, warts and all, we are supercritical of ourselves. This criticism is not a conscious thing, however. What we do is to justify our behaviour while at the same time unconsciously criticizing ourselves by criticizing the same faults in others. That this is what is happening is obvious from the fact that the strength of our criticism is quite unwarranted. Then again,-our inability to accept ourselves can often cause us to criticize others with the unconscious purpose of bringing them down to our level, or what we consider to be our level.

      One of the most serious dysfunctions of the traditional approach is that it has privatized faith. We have been led to believe that what God most required of us is the sort of untaintedness which we have been taught constitutes His most outstanding characteristic. This antiseptic ideal is a mischievous lie. The God we worship is a loving God whose righteousness is best seen, not in any drawing in of His skirts to avoid evil, but in the outstretched arms of Jesus on the cross. However, because we have accepted the antiseptic idol rather than the God to whom Jesus introduced us, many have come to equate godliness with moral uprightness rather than with loving concern for those in need. Influenced by a Western philosophy of individualism, most evangelical Christians today are blind to the social and political implications of the gospel, and, in particular, to the presence of institutional evil. The attitude of Jerry Falwell, a friend of Reagan and pastor of one of the largest Baptist Churches in the United States, towards social and political issues, such as the plight of the negroes, illustrates the point well.

      When we read our Bibles we usually identify with the disciples of Jesus. Rarely do we identify with His enemies. The Church of the West, raised on the traditional model, would do well to look again at the Pharisees, for the two have so much in common. The latter did not stint their private devotions, they read their Bibles and kept themselves unspotted from the world. They aimed at personal uprightness. They gave their tithes to the temple and generously supported charities. On the other hand, they had little or no concern for people who were hurting. The ones with whom Jesus was concerned, they brushed aside.

      The traditional model has been so familiar to us that we have not seen it as one of a number of alternatives. Because most of us are its products we have been blind to its dysfunctions. We can no longer claim such isolation as an excuse. If you choose to minister within the general scope of the traditional model you will need to take account of its shortcomings and compensate for these by counterbalancing initiatives related to insights afforded by other models.

B. THE CHURCH GROWTH MODEL

      In Australia, during the 1960's, it became increasingly obvious that the traditional model was inadequate for the times. Preachers and churches, while faithful and hard working, were making little headway. They were despondent and tended to blame each other.

      In other parts of the world exciting things were happening. Indonesia, Africa and Latin America were in the midst of revival. In America the church had begun to make a comeback. This revival of confidence was evident in the writing of Dr. Donald McGavran from Fuller Theological Seminary.

      Gordon Moyes, ever on the lookout for new and innovative approaches, implemented at Cheltenham some of McGavran's concepts. Few, however, were aware of the significance of what Gordon was doing. It took the visit of Win Am, who was invited to Australia by Kevin Crawford on behalf of the Home Mission Directors of the States, to alert us to the possibilities inherent in the church-growth philosophy. Am's visit was like a shot in the arm. It renewed our vision.

      The Church-Growth approach was intelligent and enterprising. We were encouraged to set aims and to devise strategies for reaching them. This involved research centering on identifying homogeneous groups and their needs. The importance of congregations projecting a positive image, and the need to free from administrative tasks those with the ability to get alongside people land talk to them about Jesus were also emphasized.

      While its proponents were concerned about the eternal welfare of those outside Christ, their focus was predominantly this-worldly. The style land image they were keen to develop was of a vital, caring, Christian community. They were pragmatists concerned to suit their approach to the real situation. The style of ministry they advocated demanded administrative and personnel skills of a high order, together with a capacity for visionary thinking and bold action. In short, based on the assumption of their model, ministers were to be, not so much the spiritual leaders of the traditional style, but the equivalent, in ministry, of multi-national executives.

      While the church-growth concepts of Am and McGavran lifted our sights, and convinced us that more was possible than we had dared to dream, their approach is not without its dysfunctions.

      First, there is an overemphasis on success, which was measured by numerical growth. An early criticism of the church-growth movement, that it was a "numbers game," was replied to with the comment that numbers stand for people, and people are what Jesus is concerned about. While this is true it does not wholly meet the criticism.

      The overemphasis on success obviously discourages those without the requisite gifts, those who don't have the necessary temperament or ability. These, under pressure to perform; place impossible demands upon themselves and multiply their guilt and misery. The unintended victims of our church-growth rhetoric, being the sort of people who have so little confidence in themselves and a poor view of their abilities, are devastated. If they suffered previously from an inability to accept the fact that God accepts them with all their limitations, they are even less able to accept themselves after having fallen on their faces and disappointed their expectations, those of their congregations and the confidence they feel the brotherhood placed in them. They need to be picked up and helped to understand that they have distinctive ministries. They will never be the out-front extroverts of their fantasies but they will perform ministries consistent with their temperaments and abilities. Their effectiveness will not be as obvious, but it will be real, and perhaps more enduring than the successes of those whom they both admire and envy.

      Paradoxically, this overemphasis on the church-growth model places on success is also a danger to achievers. Most who succeed, need to. Their hectic effort is often a desperate bid for admiration, a poor substitute for the affirmation they missed out on early in life. This does not invalidate their work or impugn their motives. And we need these pace-setters in the ministry. Where the danger lies, however, is in their placing enormous pressure on themselves to succeed in an area in which the law of diminishing returns so obviously operates. It is sad to see men, competent and successful, needing to increasingly talk about what they are doing.

      Another hesitation I have about the church-growth approach is that it is based on a contemporary marketing philosophy. The gospel is not something we are selling, irrespective of whether the sell is hard or soft. One doesn't sell love. Buber has drawn a distinction between treating people as objects and treating them as persons worthy of respect. I sometimes feel that the church-growth model encourages us to use people instrumentally. One of our aims is to build the organization. We substitute numbers for profit. With its emphasis on the public image of the church, and its uncritical attitude towards the spirit of consumerism, which is the basis on which most modern business practice is premised, the church-growth philosophy is in danger of standing under the judgement of Jesus' condemnation of materialism. Furthermore, the emphasis on bigness is indicative of the depersonalizing giantism prevalent in American society, a giantism that is, not only by christians, but by others, being increasingly regarded as immoral.

      If the commercial analogy associated with the church-growth model indicates an underlying sales orientation, we need to work out what it is that we are really selling. The answer to this may not be what

we imagine. What we appear to be selling may not be what the people are buying. Modern advertising often sells products by appeal to responses that are little related to the actual product sold. The classic example of this is the marketing of milk by appealing to a lifestyle associated with youthful freshness and sexuality. In the light of this, we have to ask ourselves whether what we are marketing is the message of the gospel or a comfortable lifestyle. Are we selling the latter by constructing buildings that are the ultimate in comfort?

      It is not wrong, in preaching the gospel, to appeal to the needs of people. To the negroes the gospel gave hope, for the South Koreans it is closely associated with anti-communism, while in Brazil and Chile the egalitarianism of the Pentecostals appeals to a powerless peasantry. However, while it is not wrong for us to associate the gospel with needs, even political needs, we should look carefully at what it is our converts are buying. Had Protestant missionaries in China looked carefully at who were purchasing their products, and for what reasons, they would not have been so surprised at the readiness of the Chinese to welcome the communist victory in 1949.

      While there is much to inspire us in American religion, imitation is fraught with dangers. More than one sociologist has remarked that religion has survived in America by becoming secularized. Norman Vincent Peale and Robert Schuller are both well known, but for what? What have they really been selling? They preach the gospel, in their way, but what are the people buying? Positive thinking? Possibility thinking?

      While the marketing ethos associated with the church-growth model has helped us approach the business of evangelism more intelligently, it has at the same time seduced us into unwittingly accepting aspects of a commercial philosophy which contradicts the essence of the gospel. If you opt for the church-growth model you should seriously consider complementing the approach by the sort of emphasis Henri Nouwen makes in his Wounded Healer. We are to come to people, as Jesus did, in our brokenness, offering them, not sown-up-answers, but our incomplete experience of His love and healing. The extrovert, exuding confidence, dressed in the latest suit and flashy tie, may enliven a public meeting, but one has the suspicion that there is something missing.

      Another dysfunction of the church-growth approach is that it can become too programme-oriented. Ray Stedman, of the Bible Peninsula Church in Palo Alto, made this point when he visited us several years ago. I do not find that Stedman's theology suits me, and I am disturbed by the fact that his ministry team conform to a set theological mould. However, I did appreciate his relaxed, gift-oriented approach to ministry. He insisted that programmes should not be continued merely to perpetuate them. Effective programmes develop from the exercise of gifts. When those with these gifts pass from a scene, unless they are followed by others with similar gifts, the programmes should be allowed to wither. People should not be cajoled into leadership positions merely to maintain structures.

      A final danger associated with the church-growth model is that there is too great an emphasis on needs. We have traditionally neglected needs. We needed to be woken up to the fact that we should scratch where people itch. Furthermore, as Tournier pointed out, people need to achieve some measure of wholeness before they are capable of denying themselves. Jesus did not call for premature renunciation, which cripples rather than heals. However, while it is important that we relate our message to contemporary needs, and must be made whole before we can deny ourselves, what we are called to by Christ is not to sit for an unending emotional and spiritual beauty treatment, but to costly discipleship. He was insistent on the fact that unless we are willing to take up our crosses and follow Him we cannot be His disciples!

C. THE SOCIAL ACTION MODEL

      The traditional model was mainly concerned with the next world. The church-growth model, while designed to help people get to heaven, gave more attention to their present comfort. The social action model focuses more exclusively on the here and now. The next world will look after itself.

      Since the reformation there has been an undue focus on the life and epistles of the Apostle Paul. Reacting against the emphasis the Medieval Catholic Church placed on the benefit of religious exercises, Luther drew the attention of the church to the fact that we are not accepted by God on the basis of such. We are made right with God through Christ's sacrifice, which benefit we appropriate by trusting obedience. In making this emphasis, Luther focused on juridical terms, such as propitiation, redemption, ransom, justification and atonement, which Paul used to explain to the Jews what had happened. These were words associated with their sacrificial system. However, concentration on these ideas, to the exclusion of a more central emphasis in Paul on relationships, particularly the stress he laid on Christ's relationship with the Christian, has distorted the biblical notion of salvation and led to the idea that what God is most concerned with is getting us to heaven. This reformation emphasis, reinforced in the second decade of this century by the over-reaction of the Fundamentalists, has continued to predominate in evangelical theology right up until our own day. One of the most serious consequences of this is that the gospel, and many of the emphases Jesus made, have been overlooked or re-interpreted. The re-discovery,

in our time, of the social and political dimensions of the gospel, much of which was forced on us by our critics, has resulted in our looking anew at the gospels with a willingness to let them speak their own message.

      There can be no doubt that Jesus was concerned with the poor and needy. In the great parable of the sheep and goats He made it clear that we will be judged by our reaction to those needing food, shelter or companionship. The gospel of Jesus was a lot less spiritualized than what we falsely imagined Paul's to have been. We need to de-Paulinize our interpretation of the teachings of Jesus.

      Those who are committed to a gospel that emphasizes social action regard the Western Church as pharisaical They emphasize that the discipleship that Jesus calls us to is costly, less in the sense of energetic devotional exercises, and more in terms of involvement with those discriminated against, neglected, and dehumanized by evil embodied in social structures. Drawn from many communions, those concerned with social action realise that they need to work together to combat these evils. Their approach is, therefore, ecumenical.

      There are at least three sub-groups within this model.

      First, there are those who are concerned with social issues close at hand. They feel it their responsibility to be involved in such things as settling Asian immigrants, helping the unemployed or caring for the aged and destitute.

      While some ministers, heavily involved in caring organizations, are little more than clerical welfare officers who have lost their confidence in the gospel, this is not always the case. There are others, in the tradition of R.W. Dale of Birmingham, Robertson of Brighton and Sylvester Horne, who marry their involvement in community issues to a strong evangelical ministry.

      The second sub-group are those who, arguing that nothing less than political action can liberate the suffering, are willing to demonstrate the reality of their concern, and their commitment to the gospel, in the streets.

      In the 1960's Harvey Cox, a Harvard theologian, argued that the expression that the gospel would take in the future would be political. The concern of Christian social activists for the downtrodden is seen in the solidarity of certain churchmen with aboriginal groups and their opposition to governments and powerful economic interests on the issue of Land Rights.

      Some have gone further than this and argue that theology should be understood in political terms. Liberation theology, which focuses on the Exodus as an act of liberation and on Jesus' identification with the downtrodden, has arisen from two different sources. The first is the existentialism of Bultmann, who pointed up the fact that Christianity was a matter of relationships, healthy relationships that promoted wholeness. While following his general theme, and the approach of the Existentialists, theologians of liberation contend that neither went far enough Healing relationships are only possible where individuals and communities are free of dehumanizing factors associated with social structures. In this they were indebted to the research of anthropologists and sociologists. The second source from which liberation theology developed was the activity of Catholic and Protestant leaders in South America, who, in identifying with impoverished multitudes, put themselves in opposition to ruling elites. Their patron saint is Fr. Camillo Torres who was shot dead in 1966. A Columbian Catholic priest, Tories' convictions led him to take up arms as a guerilla fighter.

      Most Western Christians are middle-class and politically conservative. such usually consider law and order more important than justice. Within Churches of Christ, which has a strong middle-class base, those ministers advocating militant social action have found themselves without grass roots support. In fact, the Movement has shaken them free.

      There are at least two major dangers associated with this approach. First, liberation theology is decidedly Marxist. This is not necessarily bad in itself, for Marx has pointed up a number of important issues. Where the danger lies, however, is in the Marxist concept of Praxis. The argument behind this idea is that situations should not be prejudged but approaches worked out on the basis of each situation confronted. The problem with this is that the approach contradicts itself. A philosophic basis is brought to each situation, the concept of Praxis itself, which is Marxian, together with other Marxian presuppositions. Those Christians working with Marxists to liberate the oppressed need to have their wits about them. However, while such a marriage is intolerable for critics of the approach, it has to be asked whether it is any more compromising than the association of the Church of the West with Capitalism? In each situation the liaison needs to be kept under continuing theological review. A second danger facing theologians of liberation is the temptation to opt for a purely political liberty. The liberty to which God calls us is essentially an inner-liberty resulting from an acceptance of God's love.

      The third sub-group subsumed under the social action model is made up of those concerned with developing a Christian lifestyle.

      While some attempt it on their own, by far the majority prefer to identify with others in distinctive communities, such as the House of the Gentle Bunyip or the sort of community with which Shane Gould is associated. Such communities are not easy to establish or sustain. Like alternative schools, they often attract a percentage of misfits. And even in the case of the well adjusted, living in close communities with others often strains such experiments to the point of abortion.

      The appeal of communities pioneering alternative lifestyles is many-faceted. Most of us would willingly escape the hectic pace of the 1980's. Furthermore, many Christians, while they would feel it difficult to forsake material comforts, are becoming increasingly disenchanted with the consumerism and materialism of our age, which is widening the gap between rich and poor and threatening to irretrievably disturb the balanced ecology of our world.

      Because of the allure of this approach several cautions need to be sounded. First, while the development of alternative lifestyles is one way of practically interpreting Jesus' comment about not being unduly concerned about food, clothing or shelter, we should be careful to make sure, if we opt for this approach, that we are not merely escaping from responsibilities or elevating unconventionality to a virtue. Pioneering an alternative Christian lifestyle demands considerable maturity. While each of the subgroups within the social action model has unique dangers associated with it, there are certain dysfunctions that apply to the whole category.

      First, the Church, comfortable in its inertia, is very ready to brand social activists as radical and socialist. The fact that these terms are used pejoratively reflects both on the political affiliation and values of members, as well as their restricted view of what the gospel is about. Activists will be charged with preaching a social gospel by a socially secure middle-class membership who don't want the boat rocked. I can't help but feel that the situation would be different if we lived in South America and had to choose between associating with an elite that not only denied basic human rights to the bulk of the population but connived with the executives of multi-national cartels operating from a Christian America. These relieve the poor of lands that enable them to eke out a meagre existence for themselves and their fellows, by sowing cash crops for export. The parable of the sheep and goats has poignant relevance in such a situation.

      Second, while I have great sympathy with those willing to identify with the downtrodden, I am aware that they are in danger, in their concern with pulling down, of overlooking the virtues of conservatism and of failing to see that there are certain elements of the old order that deserve preservation. It is also possible to be used, to lose one's Christian perspective and, to neglect the more basic tasks of ministry, introducing people to Jesus and building up the community of faith.

D. THE CHARISMATIC MODEL

      The 1960's, a period of mounting affluence, contained difficult years for the Church. Many congregations were lifeless and without hope. The community was unresponsive. Materialism was enshrined as the God of the West, despite the fact that many young people, who had been taught to worship this god of material abundance, were disenchanted with his performance. In this atmosphere the churches saw little future for themselves. Members fell away and preachers and congregations tended to blame each other. Many leading theologians were arguing that God was dead, or that the idea that men had of God, inherited from the past, was no longer relevant.

      When hope was about to be given up, the refreshing waters of spiritual renewal began to trickle, and then to surge across a barren wilderness. While most church people were perplexed by the Jesus Revolution, it was indicative both of a new search for spiritual values and of a fresh eruption of the Spirit of God. As early as 1960, it became evident that God was doing a new thing in the mainline churches. In that year, Fr. Dennis Bennett, minister of St. Mark's Episcopal Church, Van Nuys, California, startled his congregation with the news that he had had what he described as a "Pentecostal experience." Previously such activities as speaking in tongues had been confined to Pentecostals.

      Bennett was merely the first of scores of ministers who were to publicly confess that their ministries had been revolutionized by a new spiritual empowerment and relationship with Jesus. It was in this way that the modern charismatic movement, in the mainline churches of the Western world, came into being. It was called "charismatic" because of the emphasis placed on the charismata or gifts of the Spirit, mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians 12.

      Many have been attracted to the methods and style of the modern charismatics by the vitality and exuberant faith of those involved and the fact that their services allow scope for an emotional expression of devotion that is denied by the over-cerebral approach to belief and worship prevalent, particularly in Protestant Churches. Preachers and ordinary members confess to a new power in ministry. The healing function of the church is emphasized. Music, which has had a new flowering, is an important part of the charismatic style and conveys, more adequately than the logic of sermons, the mood of this new movement.

      Many charismatics have remained within the churches with which they have been associated. In some cases they have altered the tone of congregations. Others, ostracized because of their enthusiasm, or proselytizing, were forced out. Of these, some have taken up membership with Pentecostal Churches, while others have banded together to form new "charismatic" congregations.

      Several things need to be said about the movement. First, while other churches are declining, Charismatic churches are growing. While it is true that many are being drawn from other churches, and this particularly offsets the significance of the numerical gain, the fact that the traditional churches are

losing their members to the Charismatics is significant. The latter are obviously meeting needs unmet in the other churches. One such need, a questing after ecstatic experience, which is also characteristic of secular society, the Charismatic approach promises to meet in a style of worship that allows for an emotional response and in" its emphasis on healing. A further plus relates to the sorts of successes attending David Wilkerson's work with gang leaders and drug addicts. It would not be entirely out of order to compare the appeal of the Charismatics, and in particular their emphasis on community and the fact that they were, in the beginning, largely ostracized by the mainline churches, with that of the Wesleys, several centuries ago.

      As with other models there are several dysfunctions associated with the charismatic ministry style.

      The first is a tendency to emotionalism. Traditional worship allowed little scope for emotional response. Some Charismatics, on the other hand, have gone to the opposite extreme. In meetings at which I have been present, an emotional high appears to have been deliberately produced by the singing of simple, but highly charged, choruses. Furthermore, the love that is so frequently spoken about seems on occasions to be more an induced emotion and less the hard-nosed discipline of considering others before oneself that Paul spoke about in 1 Corinthians 13. One of the consequences of placing too great an importance upon emotion is that many, in deliberately orchestrated services, are lifted to such an emotional high that their critical faculties are overridden and they are hooked into going all the way with the approach.

      As is the case with other Christian traditions, the Charismatics are given to distinctive interpretations of Scripture. At times, unfortunately, experience tends to override biblical teaching. While experiences throw light on Scripture, and while allowance must be made for the fact that many, flushed with a new experience of the Spirit, have felt that the lifeless comments of some interpreters betrayed their lack of experience of what they were writing about, personal experiences can themselves be misinterpreted and should not be allowed to easily set aside the interpretative wisdom of the centuries.

      In the early years this imbalance was reflected in the absence of any theological exposition of the charismatic position. No blame is intended. The movement was new, and it takes time for a theology to develop. However, because of the absence of a theological rationale sufficiently sophisticated to command the attention of theologically illiterate Christians, the movement was looked upon with considerable suspicion. A substantial Charismatic Pneumatology has since been furnished.

      Another area of concern, associated with the emphasis on experience, has been the encouragement given to individuals to flow with their feelings. This has led, in some cases, to the glorification of unreason. The problem has been that emotional experiences have sometimes been confused with the influence of the Spirit of God. While the Holy Spirit can affect us emotionally, not every emotional experience is the result of his influence.

      Because the Charismatic movement has given people permission to release emotion in worship, it has particularly appealed to two groups, first, those who rely too much upon their emotions, and second, others who are not in touch with their emotions. The Charismatic experience has enabled the latter to discover and release an otherwise unreachable part of themselves. In addition, the model has also appealed to individuals with serious psychological problems. Unfortunately, those most at risk from a perversion of the approach are those for whom it holds greatest attraction.

      Other, lesser dangers inherent in the Charismatic approach, because they are more obvious, can be listed summarily. The first of these is an over-emphasis on tongues. This was characteristic of the movement in its first flush. Most would deny that this is any longer the case but argue that the characteristic feature of the movement is the sense of community it engenders. The second danger the movement brought with it was its possibility of schism resulting from the over-zealousness of its advocates and the over-reaction of its opponents. This gave rise to a paradoxical situation. Those claiming to be under the influence of the Spirit appeared to be the agents of disunity. A third danger concerns the scope allowed within this approach, particularly in the absence of strong leadership, for power-play. Moreover, it has not always been easy to dampen the enthusiasm of individuals who have brought a prophetic word or vision which was obviously inconsistent with Scriptural teaching and the wisdom of the community.

      Churches of Christ have found themselves in an unusual position with regard to the Charismatic movement. It has been both easy and difficult to accommodate.

      Because of our claim to have no creed but Christ, and because, in areas of inessential doctrine, we supposedly allow for liberty of action and speech, we have been able to accommodate Charismatics without serious dislocation or division. On the other hand, we have not been altogether comfortable with this accommodation. From the beginning, we argued, whether rightly or wrongly, that the ability to pass on the gifts of the Spirit ceased when the apostles died. However, less obvious but more fundamental conflicts were also at work. First, our approach from the beginning has been Arminian. We stressed man's capacity for responding to God and his need to do so. Alexander Campbell went so far as to argue that the Spirit of God operated upon the unregenerate individual solely through the Scriptures. He rejected, out of hand, the Calvinistic notion of a direct approach of the Spirit to people not yet

Christians. The Charismatic among us, in emphasizing the fact that individuals can be swept along by the wind of the Spirit, have been advocating a point of view out of sympathy with our traditional theology. Second, even more significant than this is the fact that the highly emotional flavour of the Charismatic approach runs counter to the sternly rational ethos of Churches of Christ. We are the heirs of a tradition that interpreted the Scriptures in the light of the cool logicality of philosophers like John Locke.

      The tradition of autonomy within Churches of Christ, which will never be easily given up, has meant that we have been able to accommodate Charismatic congregations without unduly upsetting the organization of our churches.

      Charismatics within Churches of Christ, as within other communions, could well feel that they are on the outer, particularly after the first enthusiasm, which is sufficient to justify to themselves their being out of sympathy with certain traditional understandings, has past. The magazine, Fire in the Hearth, performs a very useful function in affording Churches of Christ Charismatics contact, expression, a sense of identity and a means of mutual support.

E. THE RELATIONAL MODEL

      A style of ministry popular with a number of our ministers views the essence of our faith as a matter of relationships. Accordingly, a Christian is seen as an individual who relates effectively to God, to himself and to others. Sin is viewed, not so much as a heinous evil, but rather as the irrational action of someone who is hurting deeply, mainly because he feels unloved. The remedy is the acceptance, at a deeply emotional level, of God's unconditional love.

      That the lack of love and acceptance is the root cause of destructive behaviour is easily illustrated. First, it is responsible for our self-centredness. When we are with others, particularly those we know only slightly or not at all, we are either so over-conscious of how we look or how we are coming over that we keep silent for fear of revealing our true selves or else talk incessantly about trivialities for the same reason--to hide the inadequate, unattractive person we feel ourselves to be. In neither case is there any real communication. We are so concerned with how others are reacting to us that we are unable to relax sufficiently to really listen to them. We don't give ourselves to them to feel out their hesitations, self-doubts and needs. Lake self-centredness, boasting, jealousy, materialism, and illicit sexual experience can also be traced to a lack of love. Boasting, which is often confused with pride, is an attempt at compensation for feeling worthless. Jealousy similarly results from a threatened loss of affection or appreciation. Then again, many surround themselves with expensive possessions in the hope that others will admire them. This admiration is a poor substitute for affirmation. Finally, the reason why many engage in illicit sexual experiences, particularly the promiscuous, is that sex substitutes for the love that they never found. It is a desperate effort at relationship, which, by its very nature, aborts its intention. Those who make the point that Christianity is concerned with relationships argue that it is only as we accept, at a deeply emotional level, the love which God has for us, that we can be freed from behaviour which, because it is a desperate seeking for affirmation, acceptance and affection, ends in frustration and degradation.

      The relational model has affinities with early Alexandrian theology, which argued that it was God's intention to bring men into a unity with Himself. Instead of focusing on the juridical terms that Paul uses in his epistles, they emphasize instead the fact that Christians are incorporated into Christ. They regard salvation, not so much as a legal transaction acquitting them and giving them their ticket to heaven, but rather as the development, of a personal wholeness, a wholeness that is measured by an individual's capacity for love.

      Those adopting a relational theology are concerned to point out that, while we are all responsible for our actions, sin is to be regarded very much as a sickness, a malfunction of the psyche. God's attitude towards us, when we are in this condition, is not unlike that of a parent sitting beside the bed of a delirious child who is jabbering away incoherently. Whatever we say, and however we act, He never stops loving us.

      Like the Charismatics, those operating on the basis of the relational model, have their own characteristic approach to Scripture interpretation. The concepts of heaven and hell also undergo interpretation. Attitudes associated with this model also have implications for evangelism, in which emotional exploitation is avoided. They do not play on guilt and fear, though they realise that these have value for the individual. They are horrified by the notion that in evangelism people must be made to feel the wretchedness of their condition as law breakers before the gospel of God's grace can be offered as a palliative. Their emphasis, instead, is on the fact that acceptance must come be;fore change. The point they make is that it was through Jesus' public acceptance of people that they were freed up to change.

      They argue that Jesus' approach was non-judgmental. The ones he rapped over the knuckles were the self-righteous Pharisees. He turned their accusations against others back upon themselves to help them to appreciate that they, like others, needed the physician and the grace of God.

      Those opting for the relational model are concerned with the personal growth of individuals who have responded to God's love. They encourage these to develop a rounded wholeness, modelled on Christ. Furthermore, rather than merely listening to surface conversation, they double-read those speaking to them, taking notice of emotional undertones and body language. Jesus did this with Nicodemus, reaching for and grappling with what was bothering him and keeping him back from discipleship. Those keen on relational theology are not concerned exclusively with intellectual theological concepts, with putting people right mentally, but much more with helping them to appropriate truths. They seek to engage, as well, the emotions, the psyche and the will. Someone who has a problem relating to God as a God of love will not be sat down and fed theological concepts. These concepts have already been accepted mentally. The problem is that the emotions have not owned them. The approach taken in such a case, with an over sensitive individual who has had too heavy expectations placed on him and who is unable to express frustration and anger and to break away from a father on whom God is modelled, may well be to act as a substitute parent figure for a period to give the person the experience of unconditional acceptance, and to help him release his anger and thus free himself to enter into a mature relationship both with the part and with God It is with such situations that a warm accepting group, mediating the sort of love God has for us, can help develop our wholeness. The supportiveness and affirmation found in such groups will encourage honesty and free people for growth. Such groups are unlike old style Bible study/prayer meetings where the emphasis was on knowledge. Such groups can help us accept the acceptance of God and free us sufficiently from self concern to enable us to forget ourselves and reach out with an other-directed love to others. We are freed up to become more like Jesus.

      Such an approach also encourages greater spontaneity in worship and an emphasis on intergenerational participation.

      To minister in this context the preacher, and other leaders he facilitates, need to have been themselves where they want to take others, or at least be willing to admit that they have not but are willing to make the pilgrimage in company with fellow learners. This is not to suggest that they ought to give the impression that they have made it. On the contrary, the one goal they will confess to having reached is the knowledge that they have not made it. They will help others to become strong by coming to them in their own weakness. We often imagine that we have to be strong for others. In a sense we do, but if we appear as if we have reached the ideal we deflate rather than help others who feel either that we are being false or that we are people apart.

      If we opt for the relational model of ministry we will find it intensely demanding, but rewarding. It will not be a matter of quoting a few Scriptural verses, but of integrating our theology and Christian experience with psychological and sociological understandings, and cueing this in with the picture we have of Jesus at work, giving Himself to others in love and vulnerability.

      Like other ministry styles the relational model has associated with it certain dysfunctions.

      First, its advocates need to be careful that they are not merely 'navel-gazing.' There is more to being a Christian than getting ourselves whole. The gospel has social and political implications and discipleship involves us in these areas. Second, because of the time and effort given to pastoral care it is possible to unconsciously assume that the healing of persons is wholly dependent on human effort, mostly our effort. It needs to be kept in mind that the Holy Spirit is the great healer. Third, those opting for relational theology need to be careful to avoid the saviour complex. One way of doing this is to determine that we will come to others, as Jesus did, as a wounded healer. We will need to stand before others in our helplessness, where, in this very muteness, we will be Christ to them. Fourth, there is also the temptation, inherent in relational theology, to go soft on evangelism. This can result from a preoccupation with pastoral concern and an aversion to using relationships for ulterior ends. Aware of the damage caused by some preachers who play on guilt and fear, there is a shying away from confronting people with the fact that they are guilty before God and need to face up to the consequences of their actions. Fifth, it is obvious to perceptive onlookers that those drawn to this approach are usually of a type. They are rarely the sort of individuals who offer aggressive leadership. They are neither the equivalent of pushy salesmen, or detached scientists. They are more often than not people-people, whose leaning is towards the humanities. They are not the material that successful ministers in the church-growth mould are made of. It is important for them to be aware of this and to avoid castigating themselves for not being what they are incapable of becoming. Finally, those drawn to relational theology need to be aware of the dangers of being carried away by the theories of the behavioural scientists and of losing their theological moorings. The behavioural sciences give us insight into the way we function and they help us understand why Jesus approached different people in specific ways. Despite this, however, it is important for us to recognize that it is our Christian understanding, and knowledge of the way God has worked through history and our personal experience of the incarnated Christ and the Lord who is Spirit, that is primary and fundamental.

CONCLUSION

      This brief analysis has sought to distinguish between different models of ministry. They have been distinguished by theology and style. The degree to which any-will appeal to you will depend upon a number of factors. Family, church, social and educational elements within your back-ground will be critical. Your personality will also play a part. Some of us are rational and staid, others emotional and creative, others again, authoritative and aggressive. Different personalities will be drawn to matching ministry styles.

      The fact that different ministry models will appeal to different people has a bearing, not only on the attraction a particular model will have for a minister, but it will also determine the percentage of any potential Christian population drawn to this approach. In terms of marketing philosophy, each of us, marketing the same product, but in different ways, will appeal, not to all, but to distinct groups.

      It must be obvious, at this point, that as ministers and churches we need to work out a mix of the styles and determine which will predominate. While we will pray about the issue, we need to recognise that we will be naturally drawn to a particular style or number of styles because of our personalities and backgrounds. It is important for us to be us. Where we try to be what we are not, our insincerity shows through. While we need to put ourselves in the way of Jesus increasingly integrating His personality into ours, we should understand that it will be through us, our ego-centre, our unconscious, our structure of responses, that he expresses Himself.

      Unless we are starting from scratch, as was the case with Schuller and Stedman, we will be faced with grooving our personal approach and style with that of a church whose pattern of life and worship has already been set. This is not easy. It is particularly difficult for those following long ministries. Few changes in ministry are accomplished without dislocation. Apart from difficulties with personal relationships, changes in ministry style are awkward. The innovative minister who comes to a church ensconced in traditional forms, and which doesn't want to be disturbed, will need all the wisdom at his command to move his people beyond the security of the known and comfortable. You may have no less of a task on your hands if your predecessor has been innovative, in ways that are different from the manner in which you operate.

      Some churches attempt to mix styles by engaging two or more ministers whose approaches differ. But even this has its difficulties. There is often little comfort in a relationship between men who are goal-oriented energetic and concerned with numbers and others who are more people-oriented, gentle land concerned with developing relationships.

      The trend towards the development of divergent ministry styles has sometimes been criticized for being indiscriminately eclectic. We are borrowing from here and there without thoroughly investigating what it is that we are borrowing. That this is a danger is not denied. It is, however, an non-discriminating eclecticism and not necessarily the burgeoning of a variety of ministry styles, which needs to be questioned

      Variety and individuality in ministry styles, characteristic of American churches, is something new for Australia. In the past, members of Churches of Christ have been able to attend any Church of Christ congregation throughout Australia and feel at home in its form and usages. This is not so much the case today. Churches within a metropolitan area, within a five mile radius of each other, may well operate in different and distinct ways. That this is not regarded as a serious dysfunction is due to the increasing pluralism of our society. We have become accustomed to variety in marketing techniques, educational models, philosophies and religious systems.

      The trend towards diverse ministry styles is not only a characteristic of Churches of Christ, though we seem to be more open to it than others. This means that in the future there is likely to be more affinity between similar ministry styles in congregations belonging to different denominations than there will be between ministers and churches in a single communion. This is ecumenically significant!

      The further development of unique ministry styles is exciting, because, as is the case with marriage today, traditional patterns are less clear cut. Each marriage is a pioneering experiment, and this is scary! The minister and congregation, like two marriage partners, need to work out their own unique pattern. This may result in more divorces, but there will be a great deal more honesty and reality.

      Finally, we must be willing and able to accommodate diversity and to encourage a brother whose style differs from ours, or, even more, whose philosophy of ministry appears to contradict ours. This will not be easy, but where it is achieved, it will be an indication of the maturity of churches and denominational organizations.

      f. INNER CITY MINISTRY

      During the years 1970-1990 new initiatives were taken in inner city work. This selection of articles seeks to illustrate rather than exhaustively treat such developments.

      A pamphlet dealing with suburban ministry was written by Paul Cameron and published as Ministering in the Suburbs in the '80's, The Pamphlet Club, Feb. 1981, No. 298.

A.C., 1971, p. 44.

      Concern has been expressed at the various problems encountered by the five Churches of Christ serving in the Brunswick and Coburg areas: Brunswick, Coburg, Moreland, Pascoe Vale and Fawkner. Although all of the churches had problems which seemed to be getting progressively worse, these problems differed from church to church. Three of the churches had "inner suburban" problems while the other two had problems associated with their development.

      It was recognised that some churches had larger Sunday Schools but no staff, while others had members who needed something to do. The newer, developing churches had debts which they were finding to be a burden, while others had big, partly filled buildings with no debts. Some, because of lack of numbers and finance could not operate effectively, while others had no real financial worries and could better use their manpower in other areas.

      As a result of this realistic evaluation of the region which only involves an area of a few square miles, with a large migrant intake, it was felt that steps should be taken to consolidate our position and make better use of the finances and manpower available in the region as a whole. In other words, it was recognised that better stewardship was needed and the congregations had a brotherly concern and responsibility to each other. This led to a meeting being called between the officers of each church and representatives of the Dept. of Home missions and Evangelism in Vic. and Tas.

      A working body consisting of two representatives of each church and the Home Missions Dept. then set about preparing constitutions and making plans for a Regional Board to be set up with ultimate control of activities, finances, etc. The first meeting of this unofficial planning Board was held in June 1968. Most of the planning and preparations had been finalised by March 1969 and in April 1969 a Regional Dedication Service was conducted by Home Missions Director Don Smith and Dr. K. Bowes. In January 1970 the Regional work became fully operative.

      The five local Churches which make up the regional work still have their "Local Management Committees" to look after local matters. They have revised constitutions recognising the local and regional responsibilities and operate on budgets planned with the needs of the other Churches kept in mind. The ministers (two full-time and several students) are regarded as regional ministers although for reasons of practicality they have defined areas and responsibilities. Ministers' salaries and other major expenditures are handled by the Regional Board.

      Because of the larger area involved, it has been necessary for the Regional Board to set up various sub-committees for planning, recommending and subsequently effecting the decisions made. These are a Ministers and Elders' Committee, Finance Committee and Properties Committee. Problems are still being experienced and the region can see other problems in the future. It is felt, however, that the step taken to operate on a regional basis, although a pioneering step which could have back-fired or achieved nothing, was a progressive move. It is a step which has involved considerable work in its formative stages and constant prayer for guidance. It has created greater opportunities for fellowship and resulted in the combining of some services and activities, especially those with poorer attendances. Our manpower and financial worries are not over, but the previous strain has been eased.

      The Brunswick and Coburg churches of Christ Regional Board and the members it represents would like other congregations to know of the steps taken to overcome or relieve its problems. They would also value prayers for future activities in the service of the Master.

A.C., 1972, p. 54.

      (Vic.) The Vic.-Tas. Dept of Home Missions and Evangelism has announced an exciting new adventure in a church situation that has been depressed and depressing.

      On Feb. 11, D. H. Smith, the Department's Director, informed representatives of many of our inner-suburban churches that Barry Jenkins has been appointed to spearhead an attempt to meet some of the problems that they have all been facing for many years.

      Churches that were once the mainstay of our brotherhood have been weakened through social changes and removals, reduced to part-time ministries, or even closed down. The Department has no blueprint for a miracle restoration--the difficulties are too many and too serious for that. In fact, none of the other churches, even those with large memberships and substantial financial resources, has yet found an answer to all of the needs.

      Although only one appointment is to be made at present, it is expected that Mr. Jenkins will work with existing ministers, church officers and members in special projects. He will also seek to enlist men and women with specialised capacities, living in (or maybe outside) the areas under consideration. Projects would be undertaken in the fields of evangelism, migrant acceptance and education, counselling, welfare, coffee shops, youth recreation, high-rise flats, and community fellowship. The plan envisages working with our church members already residing in inner-city areas and even to "entice" folk to move from outer suburbs into the heavily populated inner areas where they can express a missionary concern.

      This new venture is a part of the Department's Centenary outreach for 1973. It is confidently expected that the churches will give full support to this new Home Missions concept.

      Barry Jenkins is well qualified to give the project the needed dedicated drive. He was a secondary teacher before entering the missionary ministry and served for some years as a missionary teacher in India before going to his present church at Chadstone. The Department will seek suitable accommodation for Mr. and Mrs. Jenkins within the arena of his new service.

The Pamphlet Club, February, 1986, No. 348.

Introduction

      Tonight is the 10th anniversary of my graduation from the College of the Bible and ordination into ministry with Churches of Christ.

      I remember that night of November 1975 with clarity. It was for me the culmination of an exciting four years. It was a dream come true.

      The four years at C.O.B. had been life changing. My faith had been liberated. I knew God in a way I had never known him before. The faculty, students, the men and women of the Brotherhood had given me a new vision of the Church and the wider Kingdom of God. I had made friendships that have not only survived the decade but, I suspect, a lifetime.

      I had been placed as a student at Cheltenham church for two years and then for two further years as a student at Ascot Vale church. On that night in November, 1975 I was about to begin my first full time ministry. Ascot Vale had invited me to stay on and the prospect was encouraging.

      After the graduation and ordination service there was a celebration, a party to mark the end of one journey and the beginning of another. Following the party came a short holiday.

      As clearly as I remember that night in November 1975 so too, do I remember my first pastoral contact in full-time ministry.

      A woman rang and asked if I would visit her in her flat. I knocked on the door. It was opened and the stench from inside was overwhelming. I was seated in the lounge room and in one corner, standing about three foot high, was a pile of unwashed, dirty nappies. In another corner was a smaller pile of clean unfolded nappies. New-born twins lay on the floor and a boy aged about 4 and a girl about 6 examined the stranger seated on their settee. The children had 3 different fathers. The woman was alone and without resources.

      I vividly remember praying that God might bring to mind something to say or do which might be appropriate. And so began what has been so far 10 years of urban ministry in this city of Melbourne.

      I want to share with you tonight some reflections out of that decade of urban ministry. I wish to address the issue of what we generally call 'the full-time ministry' or the 'paid ministry of the church.' All of us here tonight have an interest in such a ministry either as ordained men or women, or as church members, family or friends supporting such a ministry.

      I wish to emphasise five aspects of this ministry which, on reflection, seem to me to be fundamental, but which, for one reason or another, are under attack or threat at this present time.

1. A CALLING

      Firstly, I want to emphasise, against some pressure and 'hype' of a new status-seeking minority, that the ministry of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not a profession, not a career, but a CALLING.

      The paid ministry is not a career around which to build status and salary structures and career paths. The paid minister is freed from commercial constraint to be with people. He or she of all people ought to set the lead in living simply so that others can simply live.

      The minister, however, must be professional, if by the word professional we mean the elimination of error and the pursuit of excellence. For too long we have been satisfied with mediocrity. There is nothing mediocre about Jesus and the call to his service which demands the best in education, resources and the equipping of oneself. To this high call the C.O.B. is committed.

      But the ministry is not a profession. It's not like a miner or teacher, or shop assistant, or social worker, or clerk or any profession. It is a calling out of the so-called 'work force' to be with people, to share a LIFESTYLE based on HOSPITALITY and CARE.

      I am sometimes asked, 'How many hours do you work a week?' I find it difficult to answer. It is difficult to distinguish when I'm working and when I'm at leisure, what's family life and what's open hospitality. No other job is quite like it. A butcher knows when he is at work. A teacher knows when she is teaching. But the minister often cannot make that distinction because who he or she is in relationship to God is the ministry. It is not nearly so much what you do as who you are.

2. SYMBOL OF AUTHORITY IS A BASIN AND A TOWEL

      The second aspect of ministry I would like to focus on concerns authority.

      There was a time when the clergyman was seen by society as a person of special rank and privilege. He was a symbol of God and the Church's power in the world.

      Those days are gone. I for one, am glad!!

      Ministers of the Gospel were never meant to be power brokers as this world views it.

      Jesus said, 'You know that the men who are considered rulers of the heathen have power over them, and the leaders have complete authority. This however, is not the way it is among you. If anyone wants to be great he must be the servant of the rest; and if anyone wants to be first, he must be the slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served; he came to serve and to give his life to redeem many people' (Mark 10:42-45).

      Still I hear rumblings among the ministry about rights and power and although the issues are complex we need to be careful. The symbol of our authority is a basin and a towel. Our authority comes from our preparedness to wash each other's feet, to do the humble, simple, loving acts even for the least of these, God's children.

      It is an authority from below--laying our lives down for others so that the REAL POWER FROM ABOVE--RESURRECTION POWER--the power to bring life out of death.

      produce meaning out of meaninglessness

      create order out of chaos

      make good out of evil

      might be seen to be at work in each of us.

3. ALWAYS TAKEN OUT OF DEPTH

      The third aspect is a paradox. No matter how well-equipped, researched, trained or experienced, God has a habit of consistently taking us out of our depth--emotionally and spiritually. He takes us from the known out of our closed categories, prejudices and presuppositions into the unknown, the unstructured, the often scary and dangerous unknown (where it is possible to lose faith and become lost).

      Early this year a young mum told me her story. She was a heroin addict and had been living for some years with her boyfriend. They had a beautiful little daughter. The boyfriend became very ill through drug abuse. Before he died a celebrant married them in their bedroom. The young man was too ill to move and he died shortly after.

      She asked me to bless her marriage and the wedding ring. What was I to do? She fitted so few of the existing theological categories.

      We met in the bedroom where the wedding ceremony had taken place. The three of us sat around the bed, mum, little daughter and I. I read some selections from Scripture, placed the Bible open on the bed, placed the wedding ring on the open Bible, held hands and we prayed together.

      She was greatly encouraged and her faith was quickened.

      Just a couple of months ago, this woman, struggling with all the burdens of her life--a lovely but troubled life--on a Sunday afternoon, placed her daughter with a neighbour, climbed to the 12th floor of the flats and jumped to her death.

      Nothing is ever quite the same again. Neat theologies somehow get messed up. It is hard to know who is winning and who is losing, who's in and who's out, who's saved and who's lost.

      Yet it is through these out-of-depth experiences that we find the resources of God to be sufficient and our growth to be real.

4. MINISTRY MARRIAGES

      The fourth aspect relates to a very sensitive area, ministry marriages.

      I believe that the greatest opportunity for discipline and for the ministry of the Gospel is found in warm, vital and vulnerable Christian marriages.

      It seems clear that God is a God who delights in bringing people together--in relationships. It makes sense that in our closest earthly relationship, a Christian marriage, God has the greatest opportunity to be present, to be seen. Our closest relationship is the place where God dwells. It is there that we are who we are and God is who he is. And it is there in this closest human to human, human to God relationship that people can judge if the actions of our lives match the words of our faith. It is right here in ministry marriage where the person on the street will see God, or not.

      It is not surprising then, that this place where God is most present is also under greatest attack.

      Our credibility as ministers of the Gospel is largely tied to how we manage this most difficult area of our personal lives.

      And I am not talking about perfection or idealistic piety. Relationships do break down, sin is a reality, forgiveness is real. God is great on new beginnings. Who of us would be here tonight if it were not so?

      But let us not mistake the hard case, the exception, for the general rule. It is how we live in our closest relationship that gives credibility, or otherwise, to our words and in our Christian marriages the opportunity for God to be seen as the source of all that is true, beautiful and good.

5. SPIRITUAL LIFE

      Finally, the Christian minister who is to be relevant today must be spiritually alive.

      The one thing above all others that I have learned during the past decade is the dimension, strength and heat of the spiritual battle we are in.

      When I left College I knew a little of the power of evil. I had a neatly packaged theology of evil. Since then, I have met the Devil. Not a red apparition with horns and a long tail and a pitchfork, but a powerful and personal spiritual force which stands against all that is good and true and lovely. He is not the equal and opposite of God but a force which brings confusion, chaos, hatred and filth wherever he can hold sway.

      Urban ministry is the latest trendy, theological issue. I see and hear would-be urban ministers (reliving the empty humanism of the 1960's if only they knew it) preaching a social gospel without spiritual content. They are strong on social welfare and politics (and there is nothing wrong with being strong in those streams) but they are thin on sin and the resurrection and the power of the Holy Spirit in the battle for the city.

      It is only a spiritual person who will be able to serve and interpret the symbols of modern man's faith.

CONCLUSION

      Five fundamentals of the full time ministry. They are summed up beautifully in Charles de Foucauld's prayer:

      g. MIGRANT WORK

      During the period 1970-1990 Churches of Christ were aware of the growing proportion of New Australians within the population, and in particular, of a considerable increase in the number of Asians. Numerous attempts were made to minister to these migrant groups. Greeks and Lebanese were a particular focus at Enmore in New South Wales where Roy Dixon, a returned Indian missionary, sought to develop a Church of All Nations.

      More recently, interest and initiative has gone into developing work among Asian immigrants in which leadership has been forthcoming from among Asian Christians themselves. Several illustrations of the beginnings of such work are given here.

A.C., 1982, p. 107.

      Chek Chia has a vision of a new outreach ministry to Asians living in Melbourne. He was commissioned for this task at Glen Waverley church on March 21, by Dr. Cliff Warmbrunn on behalf of the Department of Mission, Education and Development under whose auspices the project has been initiated.

Asian Families

      Chek has a concern to reach the numerous people of Asian origin who continue to move in Melbourne. Surveys show that there are concentrations of people in the Mulgrave, Waverley, Springvale and Oakleigh areas. The Glen Waverley church will be the centre for the project. Services will be held on Sunday afternoons. At the first service there were 20 adults and 11 children in attendance. In succeeding weeks over 30 adults are expected.

Preparation

      Chek and his wife, Julie have two young children. They live in Glen Waverley. Chek came from Singapore in 1967. He completed his L.Th. with the Melbourne College of Divinity while studying at the Bible College of Victoria. He also holds A.A.S.A. qualifications in accountancy. Because of his strong commitment to Church Growth principles he is currently studying for a Master's Degree in Missions. These studies have an immediate relevance for new church establishment with ethnic groups. Chek previously worked with the Swanston Street, Melbourne church followed by a term of full-time ministry with the Clayton church which he concluded in 1981. He developed significant experience with ministry to Asian students and now keen to reach Asian families. It is proposed to establish a church affiliated with Vic-Tas Conference.

A.C., 1983, p. 229.

      The Richmond church and the Department of Mission, Education and Development have linked to sponsor the establishment of a new congregation for Vietnamese people living in Housing Commission high rise apartments in the area. A new pastor Dann Hguyen (pronounced Young Wing) was inducted at the morning service on April 24. Dann has established contact with Vietnamese people in various areas and there are good prospects for growth. Prior to coming to Australia Dann was in a refugee camp in Thailand. In Vietnam he had been a pastor with an evangelical church group. The Department of Mission, Education and Development has accepted responsibility to pay $150 per week for support of part time work.

      h. DARWIN

      After considerable discussion about the advisability of developing a Church of Christ in Darwin, given the ecumenical sympathies of the Movement, steps were finally taken in 1978 to form a congregation in the area.

A.C., 1978, pp. 252-253.

      We arrived in Darwin during a cold spell. The temperature dropped from 34c to 31c.

      It was fortuitous, though accidental that our suits were left at home in Melbourne. They would be useless up here, and far too conspicuous.

      We had come to visit folk from Churches of Christ, here in Darwin from every State except, maybe, Tasmania. Peter and Hennie DeWildt came, too. Peter and Hennie minister at Clayton, Vic., and the Clayton elders and deacons graciously released them to consider outreach in the Northern Territory.

      After we booked in at the Baptist Hostel we started phoning as many folk for whom we could find numbers. We were very encouraged by the result. There were 13 present including the three from Melbourne and there was a positive response to the suggestion that we should recommence our cause in Darwin and plan definitely for a resident minister and a church building. Some, of course, were already deeply committed to other churches and were serving effectively. It was made clear that no pressure would be applied to them to make any change in their church relationship. We were grateful that other churches were already in Darwin and had given our people a welcome. We were glad that our folk had found houses of worship where they felt at home. We were happy that they were able to witness and to serve and to find resources for their children.

      On the other hand we were also impressed by the eagerness with which some greeted the possibility of setting up the Lord's Table and making our own faithful witness to the gospel. At breakfast one morning at t he Hostel we met Dean Harris, who had come into the church at Nailsworth where Peter DeWildt had ministered. Another young man from the same church was in Darwin. They both came to our Saturday hour of fellowship. Another couple, with roots in South Perth and Southport, saw the newspaper advertisement, and came to the fellowship.

      Things were beginning to happen in Darwin.

A.C., 1978, p. 267.

      There is a Church of Christ now meeting in Darwin. At the first communion service in the home of Jeff and Lanell Morris (formerly of Newcastle, N.S.W.) on June 18 at 8 a.m. there were 25 present. A. E. White presided and Peter DeWildt spoke on "Coming Alive." Peter and Hennie also sang together and led the congregation. There were visitors from Christies Beach, and Murray Bridge, S.A. and Newcastle.

      The three from the "bottom end" to the top end had had a busy week. We visited all of the addresses we had, using the list prepared by Malcolm McArthur and adding names that had come from other sources. We invited all we could to a time of fellowship on the 17th. Some of the folk had left Darwin for good (!), others were on holidays, some were just not interested, and some had made strong commitments to other churches. No attempt was made to persuade the latter to leave churches where they had found a real place in the congregation. We rejoiced that they had a real home in the Lord. All we did ask was that they give what encouragement they could to the new cause and to share in any fellowship opportunities that would not conflict with other commitments.

      We visited the ministers of the existing churches and talked with Territorians about the past, present and future. We considered the number of churches already there, the needs of our people and other Darwinians and we decided that we should try to build a church.

      We put an advertisement in the local paper, and broadcast a radio message. Lorraine, at the W.R.A.A.F. base, heard the radio item inviting folk to a Church of Christ Saturday Fellowship Hour. She welcomed the chance to share with us.

      In talking with our church folk we were confident that we could expect an initial response by about 30 if a church were established. We have a responsibility to meet the needs of our people living in Darwin. None of the available churches have a weekly communion service, and not all of them find in other churches all they are seeking. We also have to think of the other members of our churches who will go to Darwin in the coming years, and we should accept our share of the responsibility for making a witness for Christ in the area.

      Confident that we should make a forward move, we applied to the Wanguri Primary School for permission to hold services there. Permission was readily given. An attractive room is at our disposal, with a piano, and services were planned as from June 25 at 8.30 a.m.

      With a new church there is need for minister leadership, especially in the early stages, and we confess that it was not easy to leave. But on returning to Melbourne we shared the need with two ministers and found them ready to go and their churches willing to release them. Within two days we were able to advise Darwin that Roger Brown of the Burwood, Vic. church, would be with them from July 7 to July 24, and that Des Kuhl of Murray Bridge, S.A. would go to Darwin for more than two weeks (three Sundays) in September. We can't say how grateful we are to these men and their churches.

      Similar short-term ministries are planned. In the intervening weeks, the Darwin church will have specially prepared tapes to assist them in their Sunday services. On June 18, we were able to announce that the "preacher" the following Sunday would be Gordon Moyes of Cheltenham, Victoria. Another preacher to occupy the electronic pulpit shortly will be Gordon Stirling, the Federal Conference President.

2. MINISTRY OVERSEAS

      During the years 1970-1990 Churches of Christ became involved, in partnership with indigenous and established mission initiatives, in Indonesia. They watched, with concern, developments leading up to and following the attainment by New Hebrideans of their political independence. They also needed to struggle with changes in attitude to traditional missiological assumptions. At the 1990 Federal Conference the Overseas Mission Board was given the go-ahead to be involved in mission in Fiji. The items selected for inclusion in this segment reflect the energy given to these developments.

      Additional material dealing with changes in mission attitude and strategy will be found in: R. P. Veal, Whither the Missions: A Study in Transition from Mission to Church, The Pamphlet Club, Tune, 1967, No. 146; R. A. Ryall, Christian Missions and Indian Politics, The Pamphlet Club, Nov. 1970, No. 187; D. G. Hammer, The Mission of the Church in Today's World: An Attempt at Definition from the Perspective of Biblical Theology, The Pamphlet Club, Aug. 1978. No. 274; K. R. Bowes (Ed.), Partners: One Hundred Years of Mission Overseas by Churches of Christ in Australia, Melbourne, Vital and Overseas Mission Board, 1990.

      a. INDONESIA

A.C., 1972, p. 191.

      The Annual Meeting gave further consideration to the possibility of commencing work in Indonesia. As a result of a study in depth of missionary opportunities in Indonesia and how we could witness as a brotherhood it was agreed that if we began work in Indonesia the missionary strategy we should adopt would be to help Indonesian churches in their own evangelistic outreach.

      The Board, however, in view of its present commitments and opportunities for expansion on our existing fields, gave earnest consideration to the question of when this strategy should be implemented.

      The important question facing the Board was whether we are convinced at this time that the Lord is commissioning us to become involved in Indonesia, and if so, the extent of the involvement. The Board was asked to examine all circumstances which should be a guide to us.

      Prior to the annual meeting, the Secretary was asked to prepare a paper concerning further investigations in Indonesia related to ways we could assist the Indonesian churches in evangelism, and specific proposals for Federal Conference and State Executives.

      The following resolution moved by C.L. Fitzgerald and seconded by T. Banks, was passed--14 for, 1 against: "That the Secretary's report on Indonesia be presented to Federal Conference as a summary

of the Board's investigations into the missionary situation in that country. This report presents four choices which the Board has considered in framing a Notice of Motion relating to that investigation. They are:

      1. That we do not involve the brotherhood in any missionary enterprise in Indonesia. 2. That we commit ourselves wholeheartedly to the establishment of a new mission field; 3. That we send the Secretary to Indonesia to decide on the best type of pilot scheme to institute; 4. That we give some financial assistance to ministries which we believe would be approved by the brotherhood if such support does not detract from our present work.

      The Notice of Motion is: "Believing that its expanding responsibilities in India, New Guinea and the New Hebrides will make full demands on its resources in the foreseeable future, the Board recommends to Conference that we as a brotherhood accept these new challenges in our existing fields and do not fragment our efforts by undertaking in Indonesia any but minor operations from time to time as finances allow."

      The Board has reached this decision after considering the whole matter in depth, and feels quite strongly that we cannot consider Indonesia in isolation from plan s being made for the advancement of the work on our existing fields.

      The Board feels however that we should not close the door entirely on some involvement in Indonesia, and if finances permit, we could give assistance from time to time to Indonesian churches in evangelistic outreach.

      This could include assistance for Bible Correspondence Courses, Radio Ministry, Student Team Ministries, Scholarships for Pastor Training, etc.

      Assistance in this way would not commit us to payment of regular grants of fixed amounts, or the acceptance of full financial responsibility for any one project. In considering the extension of the work into Indonesia, the Board has considered Indonesia and its needs, ways we could work in Indonesia, present commitments and future possibilities on our existing fields, and giving potential of the brotherhood to meet not only an expanding work, but a new field of service. Priority must be given to areas such as the Schrader Ranges in New Guinea where there is no one but ourselves at this moment able to reach people with the gospel.

      The Board is concerned about the needs in Indonesia, and many other areas of the world where there is need for Christian witness, but considering all circumstances, the Board felt it could do no other at this stage, than submit its decision to Federal Conference for consideration.

      The following quote from F. B. Meyer is good advice not only as we consider an important question such as extending our overseas work into a new area, but for all Christian service at home and abroad, "Let Jesus Christ stand between you and everything . . . between you and your projects of Christian usefulness. Follow him, i. e., let him go first. If he does not go forward, wait for him. Every step taken apart from him, or in front of him, will have to be retracted with bitter tears."

A.C., 1972, p. 202.

To the Editor,

      As one who was privileged to exercise a brief preaching ministry in Indonesia, and as one who continues to be challenged by the wide open doors of opportunity in that land, I can only express extreme disappointment and concern at the reports of our Federal Overseas Missions Department, contained in the last edition of the "Christian."

      The recurring phrases contained in the report--"as finances allow," "if finances permit," "if such support does not detract from our present work"--not only suggest a lack of faith and vision on the part of our Board, but also reveal a lack of appreciation and insight into the real needs in Indonesia today. Indonesia needs not so much our finances but our men. Men who love the Lord, men who are faithful to his Word, men who can train and equip others to teach and to preach. There are wide open doors for such men today. Tomorrow may be too late. Already urgent pleas have come to us that such men be sent. As a brotherhood we have a glorious opportunity and privilege to be co-labourers together in this ripening harvest field. Surely it is sound missionary strategy to win the winnable while they are winnable.

      To suggest that we can discharge our responsibility to this exciting challenge by giving "financial assistance if such support does not detract from our present work" seems to me so totally unbecoming a brotherhood pleading for a restoration of New Testament Christianity.

--Allan Webb (Vic.).      

A.C., 1972, p. 226.

To the Editor,

      Allan Webb has expressed extreme disappointment and concern over the Overseas Mission Board's report on Indonesia ("A.C.," May 13).

      He stated that the report revealed a lack of appreciation and insight into the real needs of Indonesia. This criticism is not valid. In 1969 the Board sent B. V. Coventry and me to Indonesia to make a survey concerning missionary opportunities and how we could serve as a brotherhood. In addition, extensive enquiries have been made through correspondence with Mission Boards, Missionaries, Indonesian and other Asian church leaders.

      In considering any new field, it is important that the Board not only has an appreciation of the needs of that field, but also of the fields where it is already working. On these fields the Board has expanding responsibilities such as assisting our New Hebridean churches in town and village evangelism and in New Guinea we are evangelising an extensive new area where people are responsive, and many are hearing the gospel for the first time.

      Allan Webb said, "Surely it is sound missionary policy to win the winnable while they are winnable?" and this is exactly what we are doing in New Guinea. Mr. Webb has expressed concern about phrases in the report such as "if finances allow" and "if finances permit" But it seems unreasonable to criticise the Board as lacking in faith and vision because of this. I know of Missionary Societies that are held in high esteem for their faith and vision, yet they require that their missionaries before going to the field, have guaranteed team financial support Are they not sending out missionaries "as finances allow?"

      Does not the availability of finance have a bearing on the extent of involvement in any new area of work? If the Board lacked faith and vision, it would have restricted outreach work in New Guinea and the other fields long ago.

      Mr. Webb says, "Indonesia needs not so much our finances, but our men." This statement is misleading for sending our men necessitates sending our finance to support them. The Overseas Board has never been advised of urgent pleas for men that would not require our financial support.

      On the other hand we have had pleas from Indonesian churches for financial assistance for evangelism.

      Finally it should be noted that the Overseas Mission Board is not an independent body and has taken into consideration replies from State Conference Executives related to two proposals concerning Indonesia in reaching the decision contained in the report, which will refer the matter back to Federal Conference.

--R. S. A. McLean, Federal Secretary, Overseas Mission Board.      

A.C., 1977, p. 246.

      The involvement of Australian Churches of Christ in Indonesia is increasing and the pattern of our involvement is quite different from that of our older fields. For several years now, Churches of Christ have sponsored workshops and seminars to assist the Indonesian Churches in Bible Reading Promotion Programmes, Church Growth and Evangelism training, and intensive lay Leaders' Training courses. This year, we will sponsor a Bible Workshop at Togyakorta with 35 participants. The workshop will be conducted for a week and it is being held because of increasing requests from Churches for Bible Study. We will also sponsor a Writer's Workshop which will be held for ten days to train people to write Children's Reading Notes, using the Scripture Union method. The estimated total cost of these workshops, is $25,000.

      In addition to sharing in the on-going work of God Indonesia in this way, an increasing number of Churches of Christ members are serving in Indonesia, with other missions. These include Mr and Mrs John Muscott, Mr and Mrs Neville Munyard, Mr and Mrs Ian Palmer, Mr and Mrs T.W. Kallmier, Sisters Kathie Bullock land Aileen Dallimore. Serving in various parts of Indonesia and involved in a variety of ministries. We commend these missionaries to the Brotherhood for prayer support.

      b. NEW HEBRIDES

A.C., 1981, p. 227.

      "That this conference conveys to the Vanuatu Conference of Churches of Christ greetings, with the expressed assurance that by concern and prayer we support them as they face the opportunities, challenges, and demands Independence has brought."

      c. MISSION PHILOSOPHY

A.C., 1971, p. 554.

To the Editor,

      The report of Dr. Philip Potter's address to the International Missionary Council ("A.C.," 27.11.71) indicates a disturbing shift against missionary activity in some quarters.

      I sensed something of an anti-missionary bias in several W.C.C. representatives from overseas at the recent Race Conference at Southport, Qld. Their emphasis seemed to be exclusively on revolutionary social change. When the "Missionary Go Home" motif was voiced in meal-table discussion, a Roman Catholic leader said "But we cannot accept this. We have been given a commandment!" A perusal of "the Documents of Vatican II indicate a strong and definite emphasis on missions amongst R.C.'s. At the same time, the position amongst Protestants seems ambivalent.

      To my mind, the modern dilemma in missions demands, not that we should recall our missionaries, but that we should send many more of the right type. Maybe we won't call them "missionaries" when we send them, and perhaps they will not be supported from Home Boards, but the church must learn new forms of mission and ministry (probably along non-professional lines) to fulfil the Great Commission at home and abroad in difficult situations in our own day.

--David G. Hammer, Qld.      

A.C., 1979, p. 62. 37th Federal Conference Resolves.

      15. Resolved that this Conference endorses in principle its Statement of Partnership in World Mission and indicates its support for the Federal Overseas Mission Board as it seeks to implement the changing direction of our involvement in World Mission.

A.C., 1983, p. 253.

      Today we face new challenges in mission. Here are a few of them. The rise of newly independent nations is one of them. Difficulty in the obtaining of visas for missionary personnel is only the tip of the iceberg. The economic and political problems of other nations cannot be avoided. It presents a challenge to our own country's actions and policies for so often they affect smaller nation states.

      There is the emergence of indigenous theologies. This is particularly true in Latin America where terms such as liberation theology are very well known. Whatever may be our reaction to the sort of

theology which has emerged we in the West cannot avoid the responsibility to listen. Here the pool and the oppressed are looking at the scriptures from the viewpoint of those on the bottom of the socioeconomic pile and they very much see God as being on the side of the weak and the powerless.

      Don't let the word contextualisation scare you. It means discovering the belief and value systems of other people and then asking the question, "What particular part of the gospel will have the greatest meaning to these particular people so that a bridge-head for the Christian faith may be established?" It's another important area for research.

      Another issue is the nature of mission. Church planting and church growth are vitally important but in themselves they are inadequate goals for mission. Jesus cared for the whole person. He gave his life for the world. Nothing less than a total gospel for the total person is adequate. Missions overseas have historically been involved in education, medical, economic and social issues. Today the word 'holistic' is being used. It means seeing the whole. It is a concern for people in the delicate web of their interpersonal relationships and the political and economic forces which also affect their destinies. It takes seriously the complex questions related to development in today's world. All of these issues can be faced from the standpoint of a theology based on the concept of the Kingdom of God.

      The last major issue which confronts us is the rise of the church in the Third World. The church is growing dramatically in many countries in the Third World; South Korea and parts of Africa, are but two.

      Today the latest estimate is that there are 16,000 to 18,000 missionaries sent out by Third World churches. They sometimes can enter countries where a person from the West cannot enter. Partnership in mission as a policy is a necessity if we are to face the challenge of sharing together in proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ to the world.

      To serve Jesus Christ in mission today demands that we think about the issues. Before we Go or Send (as the logo suggests) I'd like to add the word 'think.' Prayerfully consider the issues. We have a gospel of salvation to proclaim to the whole world. Think and pray, then go or send.

      d. FIJI

Chris Ambrose, A.C., 1990, p.503.

      That the Federal Conference of Churches of Christ in Australia, through the Overseas Mission Board, be involved in mission in Fiji, giving particular attention to the unevangelized Indian population

3. MINISTRY AMONG ABORIGINES

      During the years 1970-1990 the Aboriginal mission work of Churches of Christ underwent considerable change. Aboriginal Christians began taking more initiatives and assumed an increasingly significant leadership role. Identity and land rights issues were also debated.

      With a reduction in government funding, the Churches of Christ Aborigines Mission Board faced a financial crisis of some magnitude, which resulted in the intervention of the Federal Conference in the financial affairs of the Board.

      Items additional to those selected for inclusion here are: P. Vincent, Aborigines in the Urban Environment, The Pamphlet Club, Dec. 1973, No. 224; L.M. Fisher, The Aborigine or us and an Apostle to the North West, The Pamphlet Club, May 1974, No. 229; A.D. Pallet, The European Christians' Approach to Aboriginal Lore and Law, The Pamphlet Club, March 1978, No. 269.

A.C., 1971, p. 198.

      Aboriginal Land Rights. Conference called upon the Federal Government to take immediate action to grant land ownership rights to Aboriginal people living on Aboriginal reservations under the control of the Federal Government.

A.C., 1974, p. 15.

      The issue facing the native people today is tantamount to an identity crisis. Because of lack of understanding and ignorance by white people in the past, there was an attempt to assimilate these people into the white community as quietly as possible, relieving the Government of undue worry and concern as far as race and culture were concerned.

      The points in question which are standing out so clear and evident today are that these people do have a learning intake comparable to that of the white community and that they also have a way of life culturally which has governed their people well and has enabled them to draw out a livelihood and sustenance from what is in places a very cruel and very arid land. For a people to exist under these conditions strict laws and disciplines had to be adhered to and this called for a race of highly intelligent people who were self-disciplined to the very height of perfection.

      There are certain pressures being brought to bear on the native people even today which are a cause of grave concern to ail thinking people. In the past because of a communication problem the native people were retiring and patient. This will not always be the case and instances of racial disturbance are certainly on the increase. One has only to think of Canberra, the South West of W.A., and the North West to name a few instances of unrest whilst there has also been trouble in Queensland and the Northern Territory.

TWO SENSITIVE ISSUES

      In dealing with the Aborigines there needs to be sensitivity to two main issues. First, assimilation is not encouraged contrary to the opinions of the native elders and parents even though it may seem to be right and just. And second, whilst whites may seem to recognise an equality they tend to encourage equality in things pertaining to white culture only with which they endeavour unwittingly to enslave the aboriginal people and is contrary to their well-being and cultural way of life.

      The white man thinks that because a native council says no to a certain thing then the council doesn't really know what it wants and because of lack of communication, and because the native person doesn't want to be pressured or embarrassed, he reluctantly gives in. There is a very fine line of discernment in knowing the native people and understanding their reactions on the one hand and pushing policy and knocking cultural props down on the other.

TWO MAJOR PROBLEMS

      The two major issues facing the people at the present time are the drink problem which is so well known that nothing more need be said on the matter, and the apparent lack of respect by white people in the matter of child-parent relationship, especially in the full-blood group and dealings primarily with mixed marriages. As the position of the tribal full-blood and his culture are still so sound in the desert areas, it is up to the whites to take notice of what he says. If there ever is a time when decisions are to be made on those issues, the decisions must come from the tribe. Whites must be sensitive to know the tribe's requests and then and only then can the white element be of encouragement.

      All this may seem a little evasive but the thought uppermost is respect for the aboriginal way of life and a need for caution. We must not pull away props too quickly, causing resentments and uncertainties which can only lead to further instability and trouble.

A.C., 1978, p. 201.

      This Conference of Churches of Christ in Victoria and Tasmania gives support to the Uniting Church of Australia for its work at Aurukun and Mornington Island.

      We express concern at the proposals of the Queensland Government and its introduction of legislation without full consultation with either the Federal Government or the peoples of Aurukun and Mornington Island.

      We urge the Federal Government to stand firm on the recent promises of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and, in particular, that of giving self-determination for these Aboriginal communities.

      Furthermore, we request our members to write personal letters to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, their local member, Senator Neville Bonner and/or the Prime Minister.

A.C., 1980, p. 379.

THE MINING COMPANY

      The bulldozing of a burial ground and other significant sites by Amax, coupled with the bitter experiences of the past have given rise to the understandable concern about the destruction of their sacred sites and their fragile community.

      The Noonkanbah community has proposed a three year moratorium as a way of asking for time to establish themselves.

SIGNIFICANCE OF LAND

      To understand the Aborigines' need to talk about land rights it is necessary to first understand the importance they place on land and sacred sites.

      For tribal Aborigines there is a profound and complex relationship between land, culture, religion and personal meaning. To deprive the Aboriginal people of their land is to destroy the very basis of their community and personal identity. With the development of farming in many parts of Western Australia the effects of this taking of land can be seen: the destruction of a people.

      This same process is about to be repeated in the North by mining companies in the name of progress.

RIGHT TO TRADITIONAL LAND

      The injustice of the taking of land by Europeans is: 1. The denial of the spiritual; social and cultural dependence of the Aboriginal people, open the land and 2. The denial of a title of property ownership to those who first occupied it.

A.C., 1980, p. 438.

      Much has been written, broadcast, televised and discussed about the question of justice for aboriginal people in Australia. Our own Federal Aborigines Mission Board has spent long hours researching this very complex question and have come out with some guide-lines for Churches of Christ. These guidelines deserve our careful attention, discussion and action at all levels. We print them below.

GENERAL:

      As Christians we believe that

      1. The World is the creation of God and all people have a right to an equitable share in it.

      2. Each individual human life is of infinite value to God.

      3. There is an absolute equality of persons in God.

      4. There is a fundamental unity of the human family in God.

      5. All individuals should be free to worship God in their own way according to the Scriptures.

      6. We should bear in mind that

      a. basic for us as Christians is the application of the social implications of the Gospel to the aboriginal situation.

      b. It is necessary for us to realise that a deep sense of injustice, resentment and bitterness pervades much of the rapidly growing aboriginal and part aboriginal people.

      c. When we search for reasons for this we are convinced that the white race should be called to repentance for the wrongs committed against the aboriginal people.

LEGISLATION:

      Government and semi-Government legislation in relation to aboriginal affairs should be framed for the benefit of the aboriginal people and all legislation should be translated into aboriginal languages.

      It is suggested that we call on all members of the Commonwealth Government.

      1. To consult with the aboriginal people at all levels and to provide sufficient funds so that aboriginal groups may meet among themselves.

      2. To use the powers conferred on the Commonwealth by the 1967 referendum to provide effective legislative provision for the human rights, duties, responsibilities and privileges of aboriginal people as the indigenous inhabitants of this country.

      3. To use those powers to delineate aboriginal tribal areas where they cross State and Territorial boundaries.

      4. To ensure that an effective instrumentality for dealing with racial discrimination against Aborigines be established.

      5. To implement a process of consultation at all levels to consider preparing such legislation.

LAND:

      1. There is a necessity to understand that aboriginal view of the land they live on.

      2. Enough acceptable land should be reserved to support the aboriginal population.

      3. We believe in aboriginal access to all present reserves and traditional land and repudiate the rights of any to deny such access.

CHURCH:

      1. We believe that people should be educated on the evils of race prejudice and paternalism within Churches of Christ as well as outside so as to give realistic expression to such Scripture teaching as Gal. 3:28. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

      2. We need to understand and recognise that the aboriginal lifestyle and culture calls for a different yet thoroughly viable christian structure as aboriginal Christians are led by the Holy Spirit to express their faith within their own law and culture.

      3. We should be prepared to alter some of our own structures (ways of worship, church business, social habits, etc.) if by so doing we could foster the fellowship of aboriginal christians.

      4. If we are to fulfil Christ's great commission as relating to the Aborigines our churches will need to provide a far greater number of people prepared to dedicate themselves to ministry among them and the supporting finance.

      5. We suggest that as a symbol of the wealth of the country of which the Aborigines have been deprived our churches should accept the target of 1% of all church income for the support of aboriginal people, a proportion reflecting that of the aboriginal people in the Australian Society.

      6. We see a great need for local churches to adequately keep before their members issues relating to the needs of the aboriginal people and especially our missionary work among them.

      7. The Federal Aborigines Mission Board has been for some years and still is involved in aboriginal issues on a Governmental level and believes that our whole brotherhood may need to commit itself to a wider and more far reaching involvement because we see it as inevitable that some situations will call for such involvement.

HUMAN RIGHTS:

      1. We need to study all those areas in which aboriginal people are being denied their basic rights and join with all action at restoring them.

      2. The Aborigines, especially the tribal ones are an educated people in the true sense of education and possess a sensitive capacity for spiritual discernment. This must be recognised and accepted if we are to treat them with the personal respect which is their due.

      3. Where aboriginal or part aboriginal people have chosen of their own free will to adopt the European life style they be expected to obey the law of the country and that we should offer all help needed towards such adjustment.

      4. Employers of aboriginal people in industry or business should be encouraged to understand the differences in personality between aboriginal and white people and to be patient with the Aborigines as they adapt.

A.C., 1981, p. 69.

      God is making us into compassionate people. This happens to us when we are surrendered to him. Because we are being made compassionate we care greatly about our Aboriginal brothers and sisters.

WE REJOICE

      Because God is making us compassionate we rejoice in the excellent work being done by Churches of Christ through the Aborigines Mission Board, which is out of all proportion to our size as a people. We rejoice in the children who grew up in the missions and became committed Christians and solid citizens. We break our hearts over those who did not, and still pray for them. We rejoice in the outreach work in tribal areas, in towns, in cities and on the reserves. We rejoice in the Aboriginal church. We rejoice in the outstanding work of the Aborigines Evangelical Fellowship and that it is being supported by mainline churches, including our own, without strings tied, as a truly indigenous movement.

EVANGELISM

      Because we are compassionate we are deeply involved in evangelism amongst Aborigines. To come to a liberating knowledge of Jesus Christ is the best thing that can happen to any Aboriginal person, especially if he can be nurtured in a caring, accepting Christian fellowship.

OTHER CONCERNS

      But because we are compassionate we are not only concerned about the evangelization of the Aboriginal people. We are concerned about their social and economic and political well being. We are concerned that Aborigines have the highest incidence of leprosy in the world, that they have almost the highest infant mortality rate (only Dahomey and Togo have higher), and the highest trachoma-induced blindness rate in the world. We are concerned about discrimination in some communities, about alcohol problems (often encouraged by profiteering whites), about squalid conditions on the reserves, about job discrimination, and about the ruinous nature of some "handouts" initially designed to be helpful, or at least as a sign that the authorities are doing something.

      And we all have a hunch that somehow in matters of justice and fair play a lot of Aboriginal people are not getting a fair go. And we have an uneasy feeling that when the chips are down, big government, big bureaucracy and big business will usually win at Aboriginal expense.

COMPLEX

      Here lies the problem. We are all agreed about the need for evangelism and how to go about it. We are all agreed about the need for social, economic, political and racial justice for the Aboriginal people. But we are seriously divided as to how to go about it. It is such a complex issue.

      Some say that it is a matter for the secular authorities and that the church should stick to religious matters. Shades of Dr. Goebbels and the Nazis! Some say that the only hope is to evangelize the Aborigines and that then their conditions will change. But evangelism is moving far too slowly for that, and meanwhile countless Aborigines and their families are suffering from injustice, including some whom we have evangelized. And we would have to evangelize a lot of whites who are responsible for much of the unhappy conditions of many Aborigines. Compassionate Christians want to do something practical now as well as to evangelize them.

ABORIGINES DIFFER

      Another complexity is that Aborigines themselves differ about what they want, and what they want is not always what they need. And they are subject to pressure groups, political, anthropological, commercial, religious, and humanitarian, all with different ideas about what is good for them. And there are some who wittingly or otherwise are willing to use the Aborigines for their own political, social or commercial advantage. Even the most naive amongst us must be wondering how it is that the oil and minerals of Australia always seem to lurk underneath sacred sites.

      My observation of Christian attitudes has been disappointing. The attitude of most Christians 1 speak to is unashamedly coloured by the policies of the political parties they support at state and federal levels.

WHAT TO DO?

      Does this mean that apart from evangelism Christians should do and say nothing because the issues are far too complex for us to fully understand'? Does this mean that if a "Noonkanbah situation"

crops up again somewhere, we are to remain silent because politicians, Aborigines and other experts are divided on the matter?

WE CANNOT REMAIN SILENT

      We cannot remain silent because God is creating us into compassionate people who must speak and act, even if we are not always sure about what to say or do, and even if as Christians we come to different conclusions about what to say and do. It is better to be mistaken and seem to care than to be circumspectly silent and seem to be indifferent.

COMPASSION MEANS ACTION

      So we will be even more fully active in supporting the Federal Aborigines Mission Board's programs of evangelism and welfare because as compassionate people we can do no other. But because we are compassionate we will also be involved in talk and action that may lead to a better deal for our native people. Even if we are mistaken at times, and even if we are castigated by those who put their politics before their compassion, we are at least creating an atmosphere which will keep those in authority on their toes, at least to appear to be doing the right thing by our Aboriginal people.

A.C., 1982, p. 29.

      Something like a revolution is taking Australia by storm as aboriginal people move into positions of leadership.

      In the old days the elders of the tribe were wise men who carefully controlled the lives of their people, planned marriages, attended to the customs, preserved the culture and taught the people the history of their race. So there always was aboriginal leadership, control and self-determination.

      Then came the white man. With him came the Gospel but also there came the white man's sins as well as the white arrogance and superiority. The aboriginal population was decimated to make way for the "New Australian."

      Almost simultaneously the proud and respected aboriginal leader became nothing more than "another black" and Aborigines were treated as less than second class citizens. A study of Australian history in its treatment of the Australian Aborigine fills one with horror and shame. To be taken by an old aboriginal man to a place in the "bush" and be shown the bones of the last of his people, including his mother who were shot by white settlers, is quite an horrific experience. Even the gospel was at times presented by well meaning people with such a cultural slant that aboriginal people felt that they had to become 'white' to be saved. One should be quick to note that in those days it was only the Christian who offered any hope at all to the poor degraded and depressed aboriginal. It is worthy of note that many aboriginal people embraced this new faith and found salvation in Christ. Many too worked through their own cultural problems and became missionaries among their own people.

      But for years and years aboriginal leadership and aboriginal control was stifled, and many leaders accepted the fact that because of their colour and race there was little hope of breaking out of the lifestyle so that they could again be leaders of their people. Liquor, gambling, immorality all introduced evils to the aboriginal took their devastating toll. Sometimes though, the more subtle sins of superiority of colour, dress, appearance, attitude, speech were and still are more hurtful and damaging.

      Gradually times have changed, albeit very slowly. A Department of Aboriginal Affairs was set up in Canberra by the Federal Government and at long last it seemed as if public and Government apathy was changing. Christian workers too began to look for aboriginal Christian leaders. There have been mistakes and costly errors which involve human lives, but changes have come to the extend that today aboriginal leadership and self-determination is essential in any move, particularly Christian work.

      Aboriginal pastors and Christian leaders must not only have the backing and support of the church but also must be aware, without any trace of doubt, of the trust of Christian people in them and their leadership. The stigma of being made to feel second class citizens for so long has to be revoked by an open identification by Christians to aboriginal people as equal in God's sight and in their own.

A.C., 1990, p. 522.

The Resolution

      That this Conference of Churches of Christ acknowledge

      1. That Aboriginal people occupied and possessed this land before the arrival of European settlers (and therefore in a legal sense truly "owned" the land).

      2. That insofar as the Aboriginal people have not made treaties disposing of the land (due in part because they see it as impossible to own the land), they should still be seen as the legal owners.

      3. That violence and injustices have been perpetrated against the Aboriginal people in the colonization of this continent.

      4. That the Church's relationship with Aboriginal people has been ambiguous: that concerns for the physical and spiritual well-being of Aboriginal people have existed alongside:

      (a) the needless suppression of some traditional practices,

      (b) the disruption of Aboriginal families,

      (c) the appropriation of Aboriginal land,

      (d) the acceptance of societal attitudes and practices which have contributed to the injustice experienced by Aboriginal people.

      5. The experience of many Aboriginal people continues to be one of injustice, lack of understanding by society and inappropriate measures of support and assistance. Furthermore, the impositions and direction of governments continue the process of injustice. The exploitation associated with various deviant lifestyles of society are leading to the destruction of community life. They feel neglected, their young people suffer from the hopelessness of unemployment, their life is one of ill-health, poor education and housing, too often they find themselves in prison.

      Therefore, in an act of repentance:

      1. We seek forgiveness from the Aboriginal people for our complicity.

      2. We seek to build a relationship with the Aboriginal people based on respect for their culture, heritage and identity.

      3. We seek to support Aboriginal people in their struggle to determine the shape of their own community.

      4. We support the concept of:

      (a) An agreement to provide a basis for Aboriginal peoples legal ownership of this land,

      (b) A democratic political process whereby Aboriginal people can determine and implement policies which affect them,

      (c) Real rights for tribal Aboriginal families and groups so they can develop their homelands,

      (d) Restitution for urban living Aboriginal people.

      5. We pledge as a Federal Conference and as representatives of States and as individuals to undertake activities which will:

      (a) Make us more aware of the cries and aspirations of the Aboriginal people,

      (b) Bring us in solidarity with them in their struggle, and

      (c) Lead to a genuine reconciliation.

      6. We call upon all churches to show their commitment to this process by ensuring that our work amongst Aboriginal people is adequately resourced.

Glossary

      1. Repentance: Change of mind and a change of attitude;

      2. Ownership (4a): Custodian responsibility, i. e., care for, maintain, preserve land of birth;

      3. Real rights (4c): Under current land rights legislation Aboriginal people do not possess the right to develop, mine and invite their friends onto the land. Churches of Christ to endorse their right for economic development of their choice;

      4. Restitution (4d): Demand the Government to recognize restitution to urban Aboriginal people who are currently neglected in all land rights legislation. Where practical, we encourage Churches of Christ as a Conference to pass on to Aboriginal churches, lands no longer required.

4. THE ROLE OF WOMEN

      The role of women in the leadership of the church was debated with considerable energy during the years 1970-1990. By 1990 an increasing number of women were ministering, particularly in Victorian churches. It was not easy for those who pioneered the way, but they proved their worth. An increasing number of women ministers have settled comfortably info team ministries in larger churches.

      Additional material on the role of women in ministry will be found in: N. Hall, The Woman Who Dared, The Pamphlet Club, Nov. 1971, No. 199; L. Main, The Role of Women in the Church Today, The Pamphlet Club, Jan. 1973, No. 213; Women in the Life of the Church . . . A Symposium, The Pamphlet Club, June 1976, No. 251; The Changing Role of Church Women, supplement to The Pamphlet Club, Feb. 1977, No. 257; L. Stirling, Women's Ministry in a Changing Society, The Pamphlet Club, Aug. 1981, No. 304; K. Skillicorn, The Ministry of Women in the Church, The Pamphlet Club, June 1982, No. 312.; R. W. Graham, Women in the Ministry of Jesus and in the Early Church, The Pamphlet Club, Feb-March, 1983, Nos. 318 & 319.

      The Aug 4th edition of Church Scene [Australia's National Anglican Weekly], published an article, "Women and pastoral ministry in Churches of Christ", written by Dr. Bill Tabbernee, which was reprinted in the Digest of the Australian Churches of Christ Historical Society [No.103]. Feeling that they were misrepresented in the article, Kenmore Christian College responded, with an article from Graham Warne, which was published in the Historical Society Digest, under the title, "Women in Pastoral Ministry in Churches of Christ--A Response" [No. 106, Sept 1990]

A.C., 1981, p. 437.

An Interpretation

      There is no doubt that in the first century church strictures were placed upon the ministry of some women in the public life of the church in some places.

1 Corinthians 14:34

      In verse 34 Paul exhorts women to keep silence during the church services. However verse 35 explains what is meant by silence. The women were not to ask their husbands audibly concerning the meaning of certain things that were being said. They were to wait until they got home.

      It needs to be understood that with few exceptions Jewish, Greek and Roman women were uneducated. Much of what went on in the services was "over their heads." Hence the disturbing talking in church.

1 Timothy 2:12

      This is really the only passage in the New Testament supporting those who desire today to restrict the ministry of women. However it is an important statement and Paul backs it up with a comment from the Old Testament about man's precedence over woman.

      The verse quotes Paul's own practice of not permitting women to instruct men or to have authority over men in the church, in the sense of telling them what to do.

      It needs to be understood that in the first century secular world women did not instruct men or tell them what to do. Thus it would present a scandal to outsiders if it appeared that the church was breaking tradition in this matter. It would have done serious harm to the church's evangelistic thrust, especially amongst men, and probably amongst women as well!

      Obviously the position of the outside world in relation to women has changed radically. Today any apparent discrimination against women by the church may be considered by outsiders as a scandal, thus militating against their evangelisation.

      Also it is questionable whether a woman who reads and prays and presides in services is really teaching men or being in authority over them. Even if a woman becomes a minister her preaching is not (or should not be) giving per personal instructions to men . . . or women. Surely she expounds the Word of God in life situations. And let's face it, no minister in Churches of Christ, male or female, has authority over any one, male or female.

Scripture Referring to the Ministry of Women in the Church

      There are N.T. passages that seem to indicate that a few gifted and qualified women did take public part in services and were in leadership positions.

      Acts 21:9. Philip's daughters prophesied. Prophesying was a form of public preaching, directly inspired by the Holy Spirit.

      Romans 16:1, 2. This refers to Phoebe, a deacon. Some versions translate the word as deaconess. But in the Greek it is simply the feminine form of the word deacon. Both verses reveal that she was a very important person on a special mission.

      Romans 16:3-5 (and elsewhere). Priscilla was obviously a noted leader in the church. In this passage Paul significantly steps out of line and puts her name first.

      1 Corinthians 11:5, 6, 13. Obviously at Corinth it was in order for women to pray and prophesy publicly in services of worship.

Matters of Expediency and Matters of Principle

      Some practices of the early church were determined by the local culture and circumstances of the day, and were expedient then, but were not meant to be permanently binding. For example, Paul did not ask Philemon to free his slave Onesimus, but rather to receive him back. This was the only expedient way of handling the matter both for Philemon and for Onesimus. But this is not taken by us as a precedent in support of permanent slavery. So the question is whether the strictures placed upon women in 1 Timothy 2:12 were meant to be permanent.

      The context of any passage of scripture is always a good guide as to whether eternal principles were being expressed or whether they refer to a matter of expediency for the church in a first century culture.

A New Testament Principle Concerning Women in the Church

      There is no doubt that Paul was enunciating a permanent principle when he wrote the words of Galatians 3:28, including "there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." In the light of this principle it would be hard to condone any apparent discrimination between male and female in the church, unless with the consent of women, it was expedient to do so for the sake of winning to Christ those of a culture who found a stumbling block in the principle. For example, in some cultures it is still advisable to have men and women sitting on opposite sides of the village church, to avoid local offence.

Looking at the Question in Contemporary Australian Society

      So the question is whether in a society which has lifted strictures from women, the church should be placing ancient strictures upon them. Insistence today upon discrimination against women in the church could very well be seriously detrimental to evangelism in our kind of culture. If the church becomes the last bastion of sex discrimination its credibility is likely to suffer as much as it has in the past when it has been the last bastion of support for slavery and for race discrimination.

      We invite contributions to "Open Forum" on the question of the mission and ministry of women in the church.

A.C., 1981, p. 538.

To the Editor,

      Thank you for your "Page 13 article on the above subject (A.C., 6/9/81). I fully agree with it. The coming of Christianity was and still is the dawn of a new day for women. Sexism is as foreign to the Biblical concept of the Kingdom of God as is racism. The modern advocacy for more female participation in church leadership, policy-making and public worship is justified. How this is to be effected depends upon at least three factors: 1. Personal qualifications (not as being female, but as a person) such as Christian character, conduct within her family, spiritual maturity and wisdom, ability to perform the tasks in mind. 2. Motive. This should be the building up of the church by the use of the best that the church possesses. If a woman can meet this test then she should not be prevented from performing any particular ministry. It is right that women should develop skills by training. But no woman should be given a position or task just because of a general ill-defined principle that "we ought to have women taking part." 3. Acceptability. Every person appointed to service or ministry must be acceptable to the congregation. They might have to win their way to this. The congregation's acceptance must rest upon careful, honest thought and realistic prayer.

J. K. Robinson (Perth, W.A.).      

To the Editor,

      The new covenant God inaugurated through Christ clearly establishes a Kingdom in which race, sex and economic status are banished. Eph. 4:5 clearly proclaims an equality based on one faith and one baptism. How is it then that some of these equals are barred, by virtue of their gender from certain areas of service and ministry to their same Lord (whether in "the morning worship service" or elsewhere) that are open to others?

      We are a people within the Christian church who have proclaimed very strongly the principal of "the priesthood of all believers." .Are female believers barred from such priesthood?

      The women I know in the church today are just as diligent in seeking God's will for their lives of service and ministry as the men. Women who are led into service as deacons, elders, ministers, missionaries, Sunday School teachers and C.W.F. Presidents, recognise one thing: it is the same Lord who leads them.

--John Clapp (Sandringham, Vic.).      

A.C., 1981, p. 576.

To the Editor,

      Consider the modern practicalities of the role of women in the modern church.

      (1) Is it against the law of the land to deny them any meaningful part in the service or management of the local church?

      (2) Women are often better educated and trained than some men.

      (3) Women who have their own incomes are expected to give in proportion, but sometimes have no say in the disposal of the money.

      (4) Women are sent overseas and into our own outback to form churches and preach to the lost. (Proportion to men 2 to 1).

      (5) Why do they train women in Bible Colleges if there is no place for them to work in our own country?

      (6) I think churches that discriminate are the poorer for it.

      (7) I am glad to see women are being accepted as preachers and lay assistants in some of our churches.

--Mrs. E. Laurens (Swanbourne, W.A.).      

To the Editor,

      In response to the "poem letter" "The Mission of Women in the Church" we would make the following comments.

      The Bible is primarily concerned with salvation not with the rights of any group, including women, but with responsibilities as believers seek to be obedient to the teachings of Scripture. The Feminist/Humanist movement has placed great pressure on the church to grant women "equal rights," and sadly the churches have compromised the scriptures by ordaining women. There are very deep theological truths as to why the Bible maintains that the ordained ministry be male. According to 1 Cor. 11:3 if you invert the roles of Males/Females by ordination then you also can invert the relationship between Christ and his church, and between the Father and the Son in the Godhead, which is of course unacceptable. While it is true, we are all one in Christ (Gal. 3:28) yet the Bible teaches that there are differing roles for the sexes. The Word does not teach a unisex society concept. The sexes are equal but different, not equal and the same.

--Lyn and Alan Barron (Vic).      

A.C., 1983, pp. 527, 530.

      Several people had expressed to us misgivings about the Sex Discrimination Bill before Federal Parliament, so we invited Louis Van Laar, Secretary of the Social Questions Committee of the Victorian-Tasmanian Conference, to make a submission to us for publication. The arrival of his submission coincided with the arrival of a letter to the Editor from Ruth O'Loghlan of Canberra. We present them both to stimulate our thinking on this important matter.

Ruth O'Loghlan's Letter

      I write concerning the Sex Discrimination Bill. The Bill may appear to uphold the rights of individuals but it is based on concepts which if put into effect would remove many of the rights we at present enjoy.

      It stems from the United Nations Convention against all forms of Discrimination against Women which Australia has already ratified. It should be noted that this Convention has not been ratified by the U.K. and U.S.A. The majority of the countries which have so far ratified the Convention are Communist, with their anti-God, anti-Christian and anti-family ideology.

      The Bill ignores the Biblical basis of marriage and the family and threatens the family unit, seeking to break down the traditional roles of men and women. It would make it more difficult for women to elevate themselves to their homes and families, if this is what they choose to do, creating a false sense of guilt. Mrs. Doug Anthony said: "What all women long for is equality of personal worth, which is not something you can legislate for. They want to be listened to, recognised, and valued for their talents whatever they do have, but this Bill makes it impossible for a housewife to value herself. She feels there is a subtle message in the Bill which tells her she is wrong to stay in the home." (Sydney Morning Herald, 16/9/83).

      Pressure applied to employers to take on as many women as men will reduce the vacancies for males, adding to the already burdensome unemployment problem suffered by many would-be male breadwinners. Where both parents are successful in finding jobs, the children must be cared for by others. So often group care of young children hampers the development of close emotional ties with their fathers and mothers, and adversely affects their ability to relate to authority figures in later life. The Bill aims to promote a network of Child-Care facilities, so our society will be producing large numbers of young people who have had little experience of or appreciation for the close-knit bonds of secure stable family life. The weakening of the family unit follows the trend of Communist countries where children are cared for in state institutions and their attitudes formed according to the wishes of the state.

      Another aspect of the Bill which concerns me is in the field of education where our children will be taught that "sex-stereotyped roles" are outdated. This is directly opposed to the Christian belief that men and women are equal but different, not equal and the same, and that there is a God-given male-protector father role and a female-caring-and-nurture mother role.

      I feel that as Christians we must be informed about such matters and do what we can to prevent subversive legislation being put into effect.

--Mrs. Ruth M. O'Loghlan.      

Louis Van Laar's Statement

      Australians like to believe that in our country every one gets "a fair go." Many working Australians find this not to be the case. These Australians are, working women.

      45% of married women with dependents either are, or wish to be, members of the work force. Over 40% of "single mums" are or wish to be within the work force. To these must be added both the married and single women without dependents who also work.

      These women who have chosen to work are about to receive "a fair go" through the Federal Government's Sex Discrimination Bill, 1983. The purpose of the Bill is "to promote equal rights between women and men in all fields of activity, political, social, economic, cultural and civil; and it sets out legislative and other measures by which these goals may be achieved" The Bill is supported by Labor Party and some Liberals, and is the Government's move to implement the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. This Convention was ratified by Australia last August.

      The ratification has attracted orchestrated criticism, some of it in the name of Christianity. Opponents of the Bill focus on Communist signatories to the Convention, overlooking Western European countries and Canada which also signed it. They argue that ratification gives foreign powers control over Australian laws, a point strongly denied by the Attorney General. Mr. Hayden and Senator Susan Ryan also answered other fears with a statement issued in July in which they re-iterated that "ratification will not circumscribe any woman's choice of life style. It will not force women into the work force, children into crèches, nor lead to a unisex society."

      The opponents of the Bill do not seem to be re-assured by such statements. They continue to argue that the Bill somehow contradicts the traditional Christian understanding of male and female roles. Such arguing is risky for the traditional Christian understanding may not reflect accurately the Biblical teaching. For one to transpose Biblical verses into twentieth century society without translating their intended meaning for the culture of which they were part, makes one guilty of precisely the legalism which Jesus condemned.

      One aspect of the Good News is that God offers to every one "a fair go". Jesus' life, death and resurrection freed us from the barriers Genesis so graphically illustrates as being the result of sin, Christ's people witness to this aspect of the Gospel by the removal of discrimination within their own community, and by supporting moves to abolish discrimination within society by legislation. The Sex Discrimination Bill gives women a "fair go," allowing all women who want to be women, a genuine choice between whether to be a woman within the workforce or a woman at home, or a combination of both.

The Pamphlet Club, September, 1985. No. 345.

Introduction:

      Recent surveys, such as the Australian Values Study (1984), have confirmed what has long been suspected: women make up the majority of Christian churches in Australia. Regular church attendance has never been a strong point amongst Australians. In 1954, for example, 54% of the population admitted to going to church weekly. Since then there has been a steady decline. 1966 (30%); 1081 (23%); 1984 (21.3%). The 1984 figure for Protestants is 14.7%. Women, however, have been the most regular attendees (about two-thirds of each of the above statistics is comprised of women).

      Similarly, statistics related to church membership reveal that women outnumber men in all Christian denominations other than the Orthodox Church (which may have something to do with migration patterns from Greece and East European countries: men often come to Australia earlier than their wives and families).

      A surprising discovery for me was that the most recent statistics indicate that 77% of all people who indicated 'Churches of Christ' as their 'religious affiliation' were women! (1954: 61%; 1966: 62%). The sample is relatively small, and 'religious affiliation' doesn't necessarily mean membership (about three times as many people (89,424) indicated religious affiliation with Churches of Christ in the 1981 census than are recorded in our official handbooks (around 30,000), let alone attendance. But even if the figures are somewhat inaccurate, there's no doubt about it: in Churches of Christ, as elsewhere, women are the majority. It's no wonder that some wit once said:

WOMEN AND MINISTRY

      Despite the fact that women are the majority, leadership in the church as a whole has primarily come from the minority: the men. This, until fairly recently has also been the case within Churches of Christ. Even today, when we have 17 ordained Churches of Christ women ministers in Australia, some people within our churches still feel somewhat ambivalent about this situation. Whilst, on the one hand, they are delighted that women are being trained for full-time ministry, on the other hand, they fear that ordaining women is somehow anti-scriptural--or at least against what Paul taught. After all didn't he say: 'The women should keep silence in the churches' (1 Cor. 14:34). Other people within our movement have no doubt whatsoever that women have no place in the Church's public ministry.

      As the Principal of a College which trains women (as well as men!) for public ministry within our churches and which supports the view that suitably dedicated, gifted and trained women (as well as men!) should be ordained for Federal Conference, let me spell out, briefly, some important aspects of the case for the ordination of women as I see it.

1. Paul's alleged prohibition of women ministry

      As always, scripture needs to be understood in context. Statements such as that contained in 1 Cor. 14:33-36 must not be quoted in isolation, but seen in the context of the total teaching of scripture on the role of women in the church.

      The N.T., as a whole, clearly indicates that women were involved in the various activities of the early church, including taking an important role in public ministry.

      Whilst the Apostle Paul strongly believed that God had ordained a patriarchal hierarchy for family relationships which went something like God, Christ, Man (Husband), Woman (Wife) (see 1 Cor. 11:3 cf. Eph. 5:23), he did not apply this hierarchy to church relationships. In fact, he quite radically, following the teaching of Jesus, raised the status of women, slaves and gentiles so that in the Christian context 'There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:23). This did not mean that these distinctions didn't exist in society or in the family. For example he didn't advocate the abolition of slavery. He did, however, point out that in the Christian context one's slave is one's brother (Philem. 16). Sociological distinctions were inappropriate within the church, even if they were appropriate in society.

      I believe that a great deal of confusion about the role of women in the church has resulted from our failure to distinguish between Paul's teaching on the role of women in the home and their role in the church. As far as he was concerned male/female distinctions did not apply in the church!

      The only thing which determined whether one could perform a ministry within the Body of Christ, was whether one had the required gift (1 Cor. 13). This is seen clearly in 1 Cor. 11. In the very passage where he refers to the Patriarchal hierarchy he does not draw the conclusion that women, because of the hierarchy, cannot pray or prophesy. He merely argues that the hierarchy has something to say about the way in which women ought to be dressed whilst praying and prophesying in public. It is important to remember two things. Firstly, because of the patriarchal society of the time most women were veiled to indicate that their sexuality belonged to their husbands (or, in the case of young women, to their fathers). Secondly, 1 Corinthians was written to a new church where a common problem was that the new Christians had taken their new-found freedom in Christ too far! The specific problem which Paul seems to be addressing here is that some women, who obviously had the gift of public prayer and prophecy were exercising their gifts in a way which over-emphasised their new freedom. They had apparently taken Paul's teaching that in Christ (i. e., in the church) there was neither male nor female a little too far, by completely rejecting the culturally determined differences between males and females. They removed their veils praying and prophesying with heads uncovered. Culturally this was unwise; too much too soon. For in those days, for a woman to have her head uncovered was tantamount to declaring that she was a 'loose woman.' Paul had not intended them to go that far! Consequently he reminded them that the patriarchal hierarchy dictated a certain amount of decorum. Hence, whilst women could pray and prophesy in public, they should not do so uncovered. Notice, however, that he only complains about the way they are dressed whilst praying and prophesying--not that they are involved in those ministries.

      In case you haven't noticed, 1 Cor. 14 follows 1 Cor. 11! Hence, unless Paul is completely inconsistent, 1 Cor. 14 cannot mean that women are excluded from public ministry--if they have the necessary gifts. This last phrase is important, for 1 Cor. 14 is referring not to women who have been part of the Christian church for some time and who have demonstrated the fact that they have spiritual gifts, but to women who are in the process of learning about the Christian faith; who are in the early stages

following conversion. These women, used to synagogue worship, where women sat separately from the men, were, for the first time, next to their husbands in a Christian church which, by abandoning segregation, indicated that in Christ there is no sexist division. These women, with new-found freedom, in a new environment and puzzled by some aspects of Christian worship, may have asked, audibly, the first century equivalent of 'Hey, Harry, what's going on now?' According to the best, recent scholarship, it was in response to disturbances of this kind that Paul declared: 'The women should keep silence in the churches . . . If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home' (1 Cor. 14:3435). Out of a concern for decency and order (the theme of the whole of 1 Cor. 14) Paul draws attention to the hierarchy which he believes is appropriate in the home and instructs the new woman convert to ask her husband (who had undoubtedly been converted earlier) to clarify matters of faith and worship for her. Similarly, another difficult, often misunderstood, passage (1 Tim. 2:11) stresses that women are to learn in silence.

2. Women and officially recognised ministries in N.T. times

      Thus far we have seen that, understood in context, Paul's teaching on women in the church does not exclude women from exercising gifts such as prayer and prophecy in public ministry. This sort of ministry, which in N.T. times was exercised quite spontaneously, is known as 'charismatic ministry.' The N.T. also indicates the development of 'officially recognised' ministries in the church whereby people, who exhibited the necessary gifts, were set apart as 'prophets,' 'teachers,' 'apostles,' 'deacons,' 'elders,' etc. These 'official,' often local, ministries were the precursors of our modern ordained ministry. Did women participate in these ministries in N.T. times?

      There are no specific N.T. examples where women are called prophets or teachers, but there are some clear instances of women performing these ministries. Prophesying involved speaking a word from God to a particular group of people for a specific purpose. Apart from the women referred to by Paul in 1 Cor. 11, we are told that Philip the Evangelist's four daughters exercised this gift in Asia Minor (Acts 21:9). The context suggests that the church in that area recognised their gifts. Whether this recognition was formalised in any way is not clear. Similarly, Acts (18:24-26) describes Priscilla, as well as her husband Aquila, engaging in the teaching of prospective converts. I reject the view that Aquila did all the talking whilst Priscilla prepared the meal in the background! An interesting double phrase in Phil. 4:3 suggests that Euodia and Syntyche were not two old women gossiping over the back fence, but respected women teachers who, after having risen to a position of prominence in the church at Philippi, had quarrelled over doctrinal issues. The phrase is 'labouring side by side' with Paul 'in the Gospel.' Labouring in the Gospel, or labouring 'in word and doctrine' (1 Tim. 5:17) appears to be a reference to authoritatively teaching the Christian faith when it is applied to men (cf. 1 Thess. 3:2; 5:12). There is no reason why the use of the phrase here should not indicate the same. Philippi was a very special Roman Colony in that it was made up, almost exclusively, of army personnel and their families. Because of the high proportion of war widows and men away on active service, the population was predominantly female. It is the only place we know of in the ancient world where women held important official positions in local government and commerce. There was no Jewish synagogue in the city, presumably because there were insufficient men to constitute one. Jewish women gathered, on the Sabbath, on the banks of the river for worship and it was there that Paul found his first converts (Acts 16:11-15). Female leadership of the Philippian church was inevitable and nowhere regarded by Paul as inappropriate. That neither he, nor other N.T. writers, specifically called these leaders 'teachers' may simply be because of the early stage of the development of official titles, or because Paul took it for granted that they would be recognised by his readers as being 'teachers.' In any case, they performed this function.

      In Rom. 16:7 Paul refers to some relatives of his: Andronicus and a person called Junias in some manuscripts but Junia (Julia) in other (better?) manuscripts. They are described as 'eminent among the apostles.' Some translations suggest that they were well-known or well-respected among the apostles, but the literal sense of the phrase indicates that they were 'eminent apostles!' Paul states that they were Christians before he became one. Translators have found it difficult to make sense of this text on the a priori assumption that women could not be called apostles. However, one of the earliest commentators on this passage, St. John Chrysostom, in the fourth century A.D., had no such difficulty. He wrote: To be apostles at all is a great thing. But to be even amongst those of note, just consider what a great encomium this is! But they were of note owing to their works, to their achievements. Oh! how great is the devotion of this woman that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle. A similar reticence in ascribing official ministerial roles to women may have been responsible for the translators of the K.J.V. to refer to the wives of deacons in 1 Tim. 3:11. The Greek is much more ambiguous in that, whilst it is not incorrect to render the relevant Greek word as 'wives,' the most immediate sense is 'women' (see R.S.V.) in which case the passage refers to 'women deacons.' That there were women deacons in N.T. times is clear from Rom. 16:1 where Phoebe is described as deacon (not 'deaconess') of the church at Cenchrea.

      The existence of female elders in the N.T. is more difficult to establish. In 1 Tim. 5:1, the K.J.V. translates the Greek text as follows: 'Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father, and the younger men as brethren.' The reference to an 'elder' (presbyter) is undoubtedly to a 'church official' as, in v. 17, we are told: 'Let elders (presbyters) who rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine' (cf. v. 19). In 1 Tim. 5:2, however, the K.J.V. translates the feminine equivalent of presbyters (i. e. Gk: presbyters) as 'older women:' "the elder women as mothers, the younger as sisters, with all purity.' some modern scholars point out that this is inconsistent, especially as Titus 2:3ff, when indeed referring to older men and women, uses different Greek words (not closely related to 'presbyter'), and as the whole of 1 Tim. 5 refers to various ministries--including that of 'widows' who exercised an official prayer and pastoral care function (vv. 3-16). Hence, should vv. 1-2 be translated: 'Do not rebuke an elder (presbyter) but treat him as you would a father; treat younger mend as brothers; elderesses (female presbyters) as mothers, younger women as sisters?' If so, we would have our earliest evidence of female elders, and it would be a consistent translation. The reference to younger men and women, however, makes the text ambiguous and it would almost be equally legitimate to substitute 'older man' and 'older women' in the above translation for internal consistency even if v. 1 then becomes inconsistent with v. 17. My suspicion is that 1 Tim. 5 refers to male and female presbyters, but this is impossible to prove conclusively.

3. Women Presbyters and Bishops in the Early Church

      There is little doubt, however, that there were female presbyters in the post-N.T. period. A number of early Christian tombstones refer to women with the title presbyter and some of these monuments are decorated with illustrations of communion vessels. Other, slightly later, inscriptions provide evidence for women bishops. One of the clearest examples states '(hono)rabilis femina episcopa:' 'honorable woman bishop.' A mosaic, dating from the ninth century, displays a female head with the superscription 'Episcope Theodo(ra)': 'Bishop (feminine) Theodora.' An interesting book by Joan Morris entitled The Lady was a Bishop (Macmillan, 1972) discusses the evidence for women in high ecclesiastical office during the Middle Ages. Heretical or schismatic groups such as the Montanists had women in all the ranks of ministry and it may have been partly in reaction to this that 'more orthodox Christians' ceased the practice. As early as the fourth century, there are church laws forbidding women to hold ministerial office.

4. Sociological and Cultural Factors

      The general male domination of society would also have contributed to the reduction and, later, obliteration of official women ministry. This was especially the case when, after Constantine's conversion, Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire and clergy came to take on public civil functions. The interesting facts revealed by the biblical and historical survey given above is that the pre-Constantinian church, on the basis of Paul's teachings, rejected male-female divisions within the church (even if it accepted it for society as a whole) and was prepared to be innovative in giving women and men equal opportunity for public ministry. The subsequent reversion of this position and the reality that most of history has been written by men and is thus seen through male eyes (history, not herstory!) has tended to obscure facts which are only now being rediscovered by archaeologists, (hopefully less biased) historians and biblical scholars. It is also interesting that this is occurring at the very time when society as a whole is becoming conscious of the equal status of women and that, in some circles, it is the so-called Women's Movement which is leading the way in letting the modern church see that in Christ 'there is neither male nor female.' It is a pity that, for so much of her history, the church, especially in terms of her ministry, appears to have forgotten this fact.

CONCLUSION

      For far too long they, the women of the church have been 'the silenced majority.' They have been silenced for illegitimate reasons. They have been excluded from public ministry because of an inadequate understanding about what Paul was really saying about the role of women in the church and because of the way 'history' has obscured the evidence of women ministers in the early church. I am glad that things are changing. At the College of the Bible, as in other colleges, more and more women are undertaking theological education and ministerial training. Not all will go on to become ordained ministers (neither do all the men who study at C.O.B.!) but those who are called by God to ministry and who exhibit the necessary spiritual gifts are encouraged rather than excluded.

      If I were game to do so, I should make 'an appeal' at this Women's Conference, to ask any woman present who is prepared to take on the challenge of ordained ministry to indicate this publicly. Instead I shall get you to write to Ian Allsop, our Academic Dean. This will start the process by which you can discover whether God has called you to exercise your gifts in ministry. Many of you know Marj.

Buckingham. She started part-time last year and this year is studying full-time. She probably won't apply to become a full-time minister because she is not sure that that is what God intends for her. But if she can 'have a go,' so can you!

[NOF 626-674]