Frequently Asked Questions

In the Act2 Report, we have offered four Options in relation to the future of our governance and resourcing as a national Church. They are offered as a set of alternative options. These are in the form of different structural models with implications for how different parts of our Church would relate and where different responsibilities would lie. Find the Options in Section 6 of the report, and on the same page find a visual representation.

We invite you to explore the different features of the options and how they are different and similar to one another.

Through this phase of the Project we are seeking responses from across the Church to the Options, and to the Directions in Section 5. The deadline for responses is 30 November.

That’s the question we have before the Church right now in the Collective Discernment Phase.

Each of the four Options in their own way (along with the four Directions) seek to respond to the challenges and issues identified in the first three sections in the report. They do so in different ways by pulling different levers, having different priorities and distributing responsibilities in different ways. Our invitation to the Church is to reflect on:

• How might this make a difference in our context within the Church?

• How might this make a difference to our life together as a Church?

If you’d like to explore the Options in more depth to understand how they may address particular issues you might like to attend a Going Deeper Session.

No, neither the Project Unit nor Steering Committee have a preferred option. We offer all options as credible ways to address the challenges we have identified. We are looking for a way forward which is in response to God’s call to enter more fully into mission, can gain the support of the Church and will address the challenges we face.

We draw on the Ignatian ‘spiritual practice of being disinterested’ - invested in the process but not the outcome, and seeking only to facilitate the discernment of the Church and what might arise.

At this stage we are wanting to test with the Church where it believes God is calling us in terms of how we shape the roles, relationships and responsibilities across the life of the Church. As we come to the Recommendations for Action we expect to do some further detailed analysis and seek expert advice about the legal and corporate structures that would underpin any preferred way forward.

Oversight is expressed in different ways across our Church based on the context, relationships and the scope of the work of various agencies.

We have sought to acknowledge that diversity in the way we have mapped the Options, including where oversight might sit. We are seeking to identify in the Options ways of relating and overseeing agencies which does not presume significant change in those places where oversight arrangements are currently working. However we also know there are places were current arrangements could work better. The Options seek to recognise both realities.

Within each of the Options we have noted where the oversight of various agencies, schools and other institutions would be located. In most cases there are at least two councils identified. This is designed to signal that there needs to be flexibility in the arrangements of oversight. This reflects our understanding of the significant diversity in governance and corporate arrangements which do exist and could exist into the future.

Some parts of our Church have experienced a lot of structural change over the past 45 years while others structural change has been quite infrequent. The work of the Assembly asked that the change in our conciliar life make us more ‘flexible and agile’. Therefore a key principle of this change is that it should be able to be adapted to further change in the future. We should and need to be more open to adapting our life to enter more fully into the ministry and mission to which God is calling us.

This is a question we would invite the Church to reflect on and respond to in the options. We note that roles (and entire teams) in ministry and mission resourcing exist in many different councils in the wider Church. Therefore rather than identify in each option where that resourcing would sit we think it is really important to think through what ministry and mission resourcing we need to fulfill the responsibilities and enable the Directions. This is a case of thinking through having the right resourcing in the right places with the right orientation to achieve life-giving communities of faith and healthy and effective ministry and mission.

Each option includes a note within it about which councils may oversee agencies, schools and other institutions of the Church. In most instances this includes two councils. At the moment the Synods generally oversee agencies through a variety of arrangements generally defined within the Constitution or other governing document of the agency. The Assembly also oversees three agencies. For each council and agency in any new shape of our council there will be a decision about the most appropriate council to oversee an agency based in geography, size, scope and existing relationships.

For theological colleges, currently standards are set by the Assembly and colleges are governed by Synods. In each model different councils are proposed to fulfill those functions. Sometimes they are together while other times they remain split. No option assumes a number or geographical location of theological colleges.

For all options in theological education there are opportunities and risks. Working nationally for example may lead to greater sharing and collaboration across the Church and the ability to invest in new areas of formation and education. It may lose a connection to context and the institutional value of a local theological college. There are also opportunities and risks with our current arrangement. We want to hear from the Church about those opportunities and risks as we work together to think about the best approach to theological education in sustaining our theological culture, formation for our specified ministries and discipleship of the whole people of God.

The 16th Assembly asked us to look at ‘evolving’ how our interconcilliar governance works so it is more responsive and agile. We have therefore been guided by the Basis of Union, the decision of the Assembly and the reflections of the Church in thinking about what options are credible for the Church to consider. A range of other options were considered and based on those criteria not prioritised. However it is open to different parts of the Church to propose alternatives to the current four options.

The options indicate for Regional, Area and Field Councils an indicative number. This is to ensure that each option is grounded in a realistic assessment of how it would work out in practice. Overall all options assume some reduction in the number of councils. This is connected to our finding that some councils are currently unable to fulfill their responsibilities. We have looked at the number of councils and governing bodies in comparable churches both here and internationally. We have also thought about what resourcing may be required for councils to fulfill their responsibilities. We have also thought about what this would mean for the number of local councils and communities overseen by an Area or Field Council.

As far back as 1996 the Assembly discussed potential minimum sizes for the oversight of councils. However, the diversity of context and geography shapes these choices. Currently there are about 1,600 communities. The average number of communities of faith per presbytery is 40-50, however this varies very significantly across the 33 presbyteries across the country. The range of Area/Field Councils proposed across the four options could mean between 50-100 local communities of faith per council. However any change in council arrangements would need to take into account any changes in Local Council arrangements, new and emerging communities, communities coming to the end of their life, geography and resourcing.

Names in our Church have come to mean different things to different people. The names we have used in the report are intentionally different from the current council names. This is to remind us constantly that this is an exercise in reimagining our life together. No matter how hard we try, when we use existing names we impose upon those names our own experience and assumptions. Take these new names as an opportunity to imagine differently how our councils could be and relate to one another. Through this process we hope every council of the Church will be change as we reimagine our life together.

The report provides a explanation of each option and the opportunities, risks and implementation considerations for each option. Fundamentally each option is a response to the findings of the report which point to the fact that the shape of our life has changed and this is impacting on many parts of the Church and their ability to govern and resource the conciliar life of the Church. Each option seeks to respond to that context in different ways through changing the number, roles, responsibilities and relationships between the respective councils. Some propose a consolidation of responsibilities to seek efficiencies and consistency. Others propose a delegation of responsibilities to allow for flexibility and contextualisation. Each seeks greater clarity and flexibility. They are also seeking to align responsibilities with capacity, capability and resourcing. We are inviting the Church through the Collective Discernment phase to explore the rationale and the trade-offs. We know we don’t understand all the possible implications and trade-offs of each option which is why we are inviting the Church to share their experience and insight with us.