Of History and Financial Crises

Just recently I finished reading Marcus Loane's Centenary History of Moore College. As a piece of local history published over 50 years ago it makes a challenging read for modern eyes. To call it a 'gripping read' would be an overstatement. To be fair, as a history of the College rather than the personalities involved, there is only much juicy gossip that can be crowbarred in. That said, Loane's dry humour pops up occasionally if you are willing to persevere The focus of the work is really on how the College managed to persevere with the task of preaching the Gospel in the midst of the shaping of a nation. As a result finances play a large part in the book. It gives the feeling occasionally that you are reading a collection of someone else's payslips.

This year Moore College has been hit by the full force of the GFC. While there may be legitimate grumblings about loss of bookshop discounts and no more seconds at lunch, the real impact is at the human level as several beloved staff have been unable to be maintained. So, I thought I would share what Marcus Loane has taught me about the Financial Crisis:

1) God is bigger than Money. For those who imagine that the College has always been a place of financial security and diocesan stability, think again. For most of its history MTC has been a brass farthing away from being skint. There were many times when it seemed as if the great work of the College was about to be swept away because of financial pressures only to be graciously given a lifeline. While this tells me a lot about the providence of God it also tells me that building the Kingdom can weather the seas of Fiscal Uncertainty.

2) Institutions are smaller than People. Sounds counterintuitive given that we are talking about a moderately large College with a distinguished history. However, it appeared to me on reading Loane's account that those who led the College in the past (whatever their theological leanings) put the welfare and education of the students rather than the reputation of the institution as their paramount goal. Similarly, those students who attended did so not because of prestige but because a commitment to a high quality of theological education in order to serve God through ministry to His people. Buildings and Councils and Mottoes have value not in and of themselves but because of the people to which they testify. Christ did not die for a College but for those who fill it and the ones they serve.

3) The Kingdom is bigger than a College. Moore College was not the first nor last Church of England theological education institution set up in Australia. Many others were born, prospered for a time, and died under God's hand. We must never forget that this College stands in exactly the same situation. Because we thrive today does not mean we will so tomorrow. In a generation Moore Theological College could be no more. I definitely do not want that to happen, but I think that if I have trust in the Lord rather than Man I have to be OK with that. Sometimes I hear the view that the end of the College would mean the end of Evangelical faith in Sydney. It would be a hard blow, that much is certain, and one I think we must all work hard to prevent. Yet the Word will endure until Christ returns. If it is not preached and taught in this place it will be somewhere else. With everything that has happened in the last 2000 years the fate of one local College is small in the plans of God. Still, I believe that His Love rests upon this place and all who study and teach here and I thank God for the blessings which I have personally received here.

OK, now I must show my commitment to the dying embers of my theological education by going to class! In the words of Bill & Ted: Be Excellent to each other!

On Baptism and Thanksgiving

As I approach the end of my College career and look to embark upon the strange world of Parish Ministry certain pastoral issues are beginning to creep into my peripheral vision. Very soon it won't be a question of just What The Boss Has Decided. How I respond to certain difficult situations with integrity becomes even more relevant and I feel that if I start poorly it will be harder to get back on track later.

Recently the question of Baptism has raised its head. To clarify my own view, I am Calvinistic regarding the Sacraments. As for how they should be administered I like what Donald Robinson has to say (though, being honest, I am perhaps a little less congregationalist than he is). In short, when I take my Anglican ordination vows next February I don't believe that I'll have to cross my fingers under the cassock.

I also recognise that some in our congregation feel differently about the Sacraments. With respect to Communion it is reasonably easy to keep your views to yourself as you participate. But Baptism (especially of the infant variety) requires a clear and public judgment call - you either Will or Won't. For those who have had reservations I have noticed a certain compromise making its appearance (it may have been around for a while, I'm not really sure). This is the Thanksgiving Service. The idea being that for those parents who are not comfortable making promises of faith on behalf of their child but still wish a public religious service they ask for the congregation to join in a special time of giving thanks for the birth of the child and praying for wisdom and faith as that child grows.

I firmly believe that all people should follow their conscience in this matter. Because of my own convictions I believe that baptism is as it is scripturally described neither a mandatory rite that all must participate in or a 'work' to earn God's favour. Since it is the grace and work of God which is on view (and this cannot be shaped or bestowed by our ceremonies) I am prepared to be gracious towards those who differ from me.

The question: If in the future I am asked to officiate at such a Thanksgiving service should I agree?

On the one hand there is nothing wrong with giving thanks to God. We should all do it a bit more. And since the grace of God belongs to Him and not to me, who am I to sit in judgment on someone else's conscience. Also (for more pragmatic reasons), simply agreeing may avoid a possibly hurtful pastoral situation.

And yet...

And yet, the more I think about it, I am not convinced that I could in good conscience preside over such a service. Three immediate problems spring to mind:

1) It would be contrary to my ordination vows. Part of what I will be agreeing to is to support the theology of the Anglican Church as expressed in the Prayer Book and 39 Articles. Part of that theology is sacramental and so has been set down in particular ways and not in others. Well, so what? Aren't Anglicans famous for shafting the rules when it suits them? Yes, and that is often part of the problem. Despite my Counterculture affinities I'm not the sort of person who goes out to deliberately subvert the system. Let there be a fair fight or no fight at all. Even more so if I actually agree with the rules as they stand.

2) It shifts our theology of grace from Calvinism to Arminianism. In the service of baptism it is God's grace and faithfulness that is most on show rather than the faith of either the baptized or their sponsors. Our faith is important but only as it testifies to the work of God. When my son was baptized I had faith that God was able to nurture faith even in one so young because of His sovereign call. It seems to me that is is this focus on God's election and grace which are most denied by the Thanksgiving practice. The emphasis is on the hope that one day the child will be 'capable of making a decision on his/her own'. Grace becomes something for the future rather than the present. God is placed as inactive now but active later 'when they are ready'. Such a view of God's grace I could not support.

3) Individual conscience trumps community expressions of faith. If you were to go out to dinner at a good steak restaurant you would probably be a little irritated if the manager declared that because there was a vegetarian sitting at Table 24 the whole restaurant would have to be vegetarian for the evening. You get a similar problem with the Thanksgiving service. Everyone knows that Anglicans are part of the Baby Dunking mob. If you attend our services regularly you can expect a certain number of soggy screaming children per annum. You can even expect to be invited to join in prayers for the faith of these infants in that context. However, when a particular couple decides that such an expression of faith is Not Good and proposes an alternative they in effect ask the community their theological convictions by participating. It is never expressed as such, but the effect over time is confusion over exactly what we do believe about sacraments and a belief that church community is a Choose Your Own Adventure to suit individual needs.

These are some of my gut feelings regarding this situation which I am fairly confident of being placed in at some time. Although, if I'm honest, there are probably arguments for the other side that I haven't considered. To clarify again, I think that it is absolutely right and appropriate both that Christian communities should give thanks for the birth and faith of all children born into them. How this should be expressed with respect to established church practice appears to be a more sticky question than I initially considered.