Geneva Summit - some controversies

  • Church planting always creates difficulties with other local churches. It's the same old story, but it doesn't make it any less difficult: Don't plant in my back yard! You'll take people from my church. Why don't we look after the existing churches first?
  • Noone was entirely sure what's the full story with Acts 29 Australia and the November 2009 Boot Camp.There has been a fair bit of miscommunication, but we do want to work in friendship with Acts 29 and we do wish Will Henderson well.
  • We explained once more that Guy Mason and Steve Chong decided to do their own things, rather than join in with Geneva, for philosophy of ministry reasons. We did invite them both to come to the summit.
  • We wrestled with how best to rephrase Acts 29's statement on ''We are Missional". Andrew expressed discomfort with the statement "We are faithful to our changing cultural context". He suggested "We take heed of ...". There was worry that this was too soft, suggesting that we might sit at a distance, aware but disengaged. Phil Campbell proposed: "Keenly aware of our cultural ontext... so as to engage..." or something like that.
  • I proposed that we frame a positive statement about the goodness of the created world. I think we should put this as a part of our doctrine of creation, rather than as a part of our mission. This will correct the perceived/implied dualism in our church culture, but also stand apart from the tendency in some circles to see secular work/cultural renewal as a central part of our mission.
  • Geneva will not sanction only one style or approach of church planting. Although the leaders may have their own opinions, and may at times share these, we are not merely championing one style.