





































7

Report of the Christian Communities and 
Mission Study Group
IAMS Assembly, Morling College, Sydney, Australia 7-11 July 2022

Lynne Taylor
lynne.taylor@otago.ac.nz
Jack Somerville Lecturer in Pastoral Theology, Theology Programme, University of 
Otago, Aotearoa New Zealand

Nigel Rooms
nigel.rooms@churchmissionsociety.org
Church Mission Society, Oxford UK and The Queen’s Foundation, Birmingham, UK

The Christian Communities and Mission Study Group (CC&M) was conceived 
at the 2016 International Association of Mission Studies (IAMS) Assembly in 
Seoul and later accepted as a study group by the IAMS Executive Committee. 
The meeting in Sydney was our first gathering to share papers. As conveners of 
the Group and knowing its connection to Ecclesial Futures we share this brief 
report with readers of the journal.

The Christian Communities and Mission Study Group understands local 
Christian communities as (a) the hermeneutic of the gospel and (b) meeting 
God’s future as it comes towards us in the shape of the reign of God within the 
particular time and place that we find ourselves. This requires these communities 

mailto:lynne.taylor%40otago.ac.nz?subject=
mailto:nigel.rooms%40churchmissionsociety.org?subject=


E c c l e s i a l  F u t u r e s :  Vo l u m e  3 ,  I s s u e  2

8

to be constantly adapting and changing as they orient themselves towards God’s 
preferred and promised future in a rapidly changing world. We believe study 
and research in how local churches change to be increasingly faithful in their 
everyday apostolicity is urgently needed.

Schedule and Process

CC&M received 40 paper proposals for the (postponed) 2020 Sydney assembly, 
33 of which were accepted for this Study Group. Of those 2020 papers, 12 were 
reconfirmed for 2022 and we had 17 more proposals for 2022 of which 13 were 
accepted. In the end, due to the usual last-minute changes, there were 21 pre-
sentations scheduled and 20 delivered.

IAMS was run as a hybrid conference, both online and onsite at Morling 
College. The CC&M conveners put a lot of thought into how the benefits of 
being hybrid could be maximized for our study group, and potential disad-
vantages minimized. We decided early in 2022 to use a “flipped classroom” 
approach to sharing the papers and asked each presenter to record a 20-minute 
video of their material which could be watched beforehand. As conveners we 
encouraged participants to view, make comments, and provide questions on 
the videos, and did so ourselves for each presentation. Written papers were also 
available beforehand.

Interactive learning was an important priority for us, modelling something 
foundational to this group – the formation of Christian community around 
God’s mission. Thus, we organized the papers into seven different themes and 
in each session the two or three presenters (from the same theme) offered a 
short five-minute summary of their paper. Then, rather than discussing each 
individual paper one by one, we encouraged a community of learning to 
form, inviting “generous, appreciative, inquiring and probing” comments and 
questions from those in the room and online on all of the presentations. This 
enabled commonalities and differences to be explored alongside the learnings 
from each individual paper. Appreciative feedback overwhelmingly affirmed 
this approach, and some commented on the different “feel” and culture it gave 
to our study group.



9

Report of the Christian Communities and Mission Study Group

Participants

Ten countries were represented by those who presented: Australia, Germany, 
Pakistan, New Zealand, Myanmar, Philippines, South Africa, South Korea, 
USA and the UK. Of the 21 presenters, five were women: less than one quarter. 
Nine of the presenters were online and eleven onsite. We deliberately mixed 
online and onsite presentations in each session to help ensure that the onsite 
group did not dominate.

Themes

As noted above, we pre-organized the papers into seven themes: chaplaincy; 
missional/attractional church models (especially in South Korea); responses to 
Covid-19; community and belonging; war, crisis and justice; indigeneity and 
decolonization; and partnerships and power.

Learnings

Each paper and collection of papers generated creative and critical discussion 
and a good deal of learning. Our final session was a debrief, where we consid-
ered the common learnings and insights from the papers. These are outlined 
next.

We recognized that different approaches can be taken to the “other”. Some 
presentations described churches and mission initiatives that had tended to 
take a deficit approach, identifying problems and seeking to resolve them. 
Other activities and initiatives described were more appreciative in style, begin-
ning with recognizing the good and working to enhance that. The starting point 
makes a difference to the overall stance and approach taken.

We noted the importance of deep listening for the church in mission. Such 
listening is attentive to the complexities of language, including the need to hear 
people in their own language. While this certainly relates to syntax, it is much 
deeper than that. Listening also needs to be attentive to cultural difference, 
because listening is itself culturally bound.

We affirmed the importance of healthy partnerships and interactions 
between and beyond churches. Mutuality was key here: both mutual partner-
ships, characterized by humility; and mutual understandings, characterized by 
respect. The significance and potential of resource sharing was noted, again 



E c c l e s i a l  F u t u r e s :  Vo l u m e  3 ,  I s s u e  2

10

with an emphasis on mutuality, rather than a presumption of a “stronger” group 
giving one-way support to a “weaker” one. While this was noted in relation to 
interaction between churches, it can also be extended to the sharing of insights 
and perspectives between the West and the global South. In relation to this, 
we noted the need for Western Christians to give up or let go of their ethno-
centrism, taking a decolonizing stance. We also recognized the importance of 
“bridge people” who have an ability to cross over from one culture or group 
to the other and connect the two together. Stories of intentionally working 
together ought to be shared and celebrated.

We affirmed the learnings from other cultures. Two were particularly 
noted. First, the contribution that Māori scholar Mason Durie’s Te Whare Tapa 
Whā model can make to our understandings of the interrelatedness of wellbe-
ing (Durie 1985). Secondly, ganjang gejang and the osmotic pressure between 
crab meat and soy sauce as an evocative image of kingdom renewal.

We were aware that deep theology lay behind our discussions, and per-
haps the limitations of missional ecclesiology in relation to systematic theology. 
We were aware that not all theological terms were used in the same way by all 
participants. This invites careful definitions, while recognizing that consensus 
is not necessarily possible or required. That said, some foundational things 
remain: for instance recognizing Christ as unifier between us all.

We recognized that effective mission, ministry, and change takes time. 
We affirmed the power and activity of God in our world and in our lives and 
wondered how to with live with that power, and how might we use it for good. 
We affirmed the invitation to move to the margins and our expectancy to meet 
God there.

Reference

Durie, M. H. 1985. “A Maori Perspective on Health.” Social Science and Medicine 20.5: 483-6.




