Theological College Visit - STM

It was great to be able to drop in at the Malaysia Theological Seminary in Seremban and to be shown around by my friend, former teacher and past supervisor Paul Barker who now serves on the faculty. STM trains leaders for several denominations - including the Anglicans - in Malaysia and other parts of Asia too.

I really enjoyed seeing the grounds and facilities (and was pleased to see that MacCulloch's landmark biography of Cranmer was in a prominent place in library). It was also great to chat about culture and ministry in South-East Asia over lunch with Paul and Tan Jin Huat, the Academic Dean.

I was greatly encouraged through this visit. A large student body and a gifted, committed faculty are both good reasons to give thanks and to be optimistic about ongoing, faithful gospel ministry in the region.

Church Visit - St George's Penang

Although there is massive variability in the Anglican Church around the world, it's great that you can still turn up at an Anglican service in another country and feel quite at home. Interestingly, we visited the 'contemporary' (read 'non-Prayer Book') service so it wasn't the liturgy that gave us the familiar feel. It was more the distinctive tone, or mood, of evangelical Anglicanism that was apparent: the way people led, spoke and prayed, the close attention to the Bible (including lots of note-taking by some congregants), the relaxed-though-dignified vibe and so on. Not so great for church-tourists who are keen on collecting broad and different experiences, but great for travellers who just want to join with others for corporate worship that makes sense to them.

(The very Roman architecture is strange for an Anglican church building and the spire is a bit jarring for my eye. The whitewash was stark too - fortunately, it wasn't a tomb!)

Church Visit - St John's Toorak - Oops!

What's wrong with this picture?

You need a close up to tell.

The Bible references for the two middle panels are the wrong way around. John 19:16 for Jesus' baptism and Mark 1:10 for his crucifixion.

It would probably be quite a bit of work to cut and paste them now...

Via Media not Latitudinarianism (fancy words, critical distinction)

The Anglican Church is famously the 'via media', or 'middle way', church. This idea has been taken by some with enthusiasm, and by others with disappointment, to mean that Anglicanism is fundamentally flexible and does not hold any immovable doctrine. But that would be to confuse the via media with latitudinarianism. The two are quite different. Anglicans adhere to the former, but not the latter.

Negatively, the Anglican via media means the Church is neither Roman Catholic, nor separatist Puritan. Positively, it means the Anglican Church combines an Episcopal structure with Protestant theology. Practically, therefore, the via media doesn't mean that the church is anything at all like broadly permissive latitudinarianism.

The via media is usually read to have been normalised for the Church of England under Elizabeth I. This was a time when theological uniformity, not diversity, was the goal of the national church (granted that this was driven by political necessity as much as theological conviction). Doctrinal boundaries were clearly set and while there was room for some debate on secondary matters, divergent positions on core articles of faith were not accepted. Authority structures were clear and dissent or rebellion was actively opposed. Far from being flexible, the historical Anglican via media held quite a rigid line between alternative views.

It's easy to cast this in harsh-sounding terms as I've done here, but there's also something greatly wise and mature about a non-rubbery middle way. Perhaps considering the concept from the perspective of Aristotle's philosophy is helpful. Aristotle championed a via media for virtues, seeing the error of defining polarising binary systems. For example, instead of taking the ideas of cowardice and bravery as opposites, in Aristotle's thinking, cowardice and foolhardiness are set as opposite extremes and bravery is reframed as the virtuous middle way between the two. Notice that in this system, the via media doesn't embrace the extremes, but charts a strong, clear course between them.

Although the concepts don't completely overlap, there is a parallel with the Anglican via media as originally conceived. The doctrinal errors of Rome were rejected as were the overreactions of potentially anarchic separatists. It was a wise and brave middle way, not at all the establishment of a broad and non-commital church.

It's a great heritage for modern Anglicans to give thanks for and to embrace.

Competence, Part 2

In his comment on yesterday's post, ADR hit right on the big 'but' that must be appended to my thoughts on competence in church leadership. Basically, we want to call for competence, but we mustn't be clumsy in directly equating church growth to the abilities of the leader. There are a number of reasons for this.

First is that there are lots of competent ministers working faithfully in contexts where the ground is tough. That is, the reason for the lack of numerical growth is far more due to their contexts than any lack of competence. The fact is that not every place has groups of people equally open to receiving the gospel. Why? Often we can discern historical, cultural and sociological reasons for this. Often we have to admit to having no idea why God hasn't readied people's hearts at a particular time.

Second is that there are different seasons in ministry. As Paul says in 1 Cor 3, some will have the task of planting and some will have the task of watering and it may then be that it's others again who have the joy of harvesting. The history of missions tells us that the harvest may come generations after the planting and watering.

Third is that numbers don't tell the whole story. If it were so simple, this wouldn't even be a conversation. We would just say that growing churches have competent leaders and churches that aren't growing don't. End of story. But while building the Kingdom numerically is a key part of the role of a church leader, it's not the whole role. At different times in the life of a local church, the balance must tip towards 'tending the flock' rather than 'making disciples' and while I think it's a mistake to polarise these, there will be times when leadership needs to be directed more to pastoral care and housekeeping than to outreach.

Having said all of this though, I don't want to qualify my original thoughts so much that they can just be dismissed. Given the big 'but', I still want to say leadership competence is something that must be evaluated. We can't always assume that a lack of numerical growth is due to the situation, not the leader. That may be the case, but it may not be. If we are to be good stewards of the church, the gifts and the resources that have been entrusted to us, we must ask the question.

The challenge in all this is how to make the determination. Short of running a controlled scientific experiment with two equally resourced churches on opposite street corners, how can you possibly tell if a local church is struggling because of an incompetent minister or because it's in a tough environment? I don't have a simple answer. But that doesn't mean it isn't an important question.

A few more thoughts still to come...

Competence, Part 1

When the Book of Common Prayer and the Homilies were first mandated for use in English parish churches, they served several functions. Perhaps they're most famously known for aiding in the establishment of uniformity in corporate worship and therefore in public belief. But in addition, they also helped to overcome the problem of widespread clerical incompetence.

Although largely financially motivated, the dissolution of the monasteries through the 1530s and the abolition of chantries in the 1540s effectively changed the job descriptions of a large number of English clergy. Those whose roles had mostly been the saying of private masses now found themselves unemployed and re-designated as preachers and congregational leaders. But then even if they were able to secure a new post in a parish church, many would arrive without any of the skills required for their position. Therefore one great benefit of the BCP and the Homilies was that they allowed a minister in this situation to effectively 'paint by numbers'. If they could read, they could lead. With two books they could feed their flocks a steady diet of Protestant doctrine, administer the sacraments and conduct corporate worship and it would all be as sound as their congregations would have gotten from any other local church in the country.

What's the modern equivalent? Is there any way to bridge the competence gaps for today's church leaders?

First of all, we need to note that church leaders today need a much broader set of competences than their early-modern English predecessors. While running good services and preaching good sermons is absolutely critical, more is needed at a time when there are far more options for church and spirituality and when our culture has high expectations of quality. So our generation of church leaders also need to be competent at things that are potentially as diverse as management and governance, advertising, leading teams, training, recruiting lay leaders, property development and much more too. Clearly, for all this, there is no quick, one-size-fits-all solution. There is no pair of books that a diocese can distribute that will allow incompetent ministers to pull it all off. So what to do? I think two things are critical.

First is theological formation. The years that are spent in ministry traineeships, Bible college courses and curacies provide the major opportunities for key competencies to be developed. Fortunately, lots of ministry training programs, theological schools and diocesan administrations are already well aware of this. In fact, I think it would probably be quite hard these days to find an organisation involved in ministry formation that hadn't already thought a lot about how to ensure a wide spread of key competencies are being taught.

But the second thing is to actually set some real standards for those competencies because the fact is that not everyone who undergoes training will have the capacity to develop them all. We mustn't make the all-too-common mistake of thinking that just because someone has done a course on something, they're now gifted in that area. This is like the mistake of thinking that just because someone had a certain job for a number of years that they were necessarily good at it. If that were the case, you could think that any minister who ran a church for 20 years was competent even if they oversaw a decline in attendance, were repeatedly unable to meet budget or never baptised anyone into the faith. Time spent shouldn't trump results achieved.

This might sound tough, but anyone who's worked in church ministry knows how much more there is to it than just preaching sermons and leading Sunday services. And the reality is that not everyone who shows interest, does a theology degree or even feels called to the ministry will actually be gifted with all the competencies necessary for the task. There must be proper evaluation.

I'm very conscious that this line of thinking could go very sour if pushed too hard. We don't want the church to become coldly performance based. We don't want a wholesale import of marketplace ideas into our recruitment processes. We certainly don't want to overlook questions of character and integrity while focussing on skill sets. But nonetheless, we do have a mission and we do want to see tangible results. Ensuring that we don't put people into jobs beyond their competencies is one important factor.

There's more to say on this. I might add to it in a future post...

Basic Integrity

One of the things that's often celebrated about the Anglican Church is that it's broad enough to accommodate a range of views on various matters. The typical, inoffensive, example of this has to do with different local 'traditions' in corporate worship. Some Anglicans are very formal and run quite 'churchy' services with particular robes, symbols, actions and classical music, whereas others are very casual and have services that are more informal with no particular dress code, more modern music, etc. etc. While there are some important missiological questions to ask around this, it's all fine as far as it goes.

However, there are some who use this idea of an accommodating church to suggest that Anglicanism is equally relaxed about its doctrine; while some people in the church believe x, it's completely acceptable that others believe y. To some extent, this is the case. For example, on the more contentious issue of whether or not the Church should consecrate female bishops, the Anglican Church of Australia has given the green light but also provided an Alternative Episcopal Oversight Protocol for those ministers whose consciences won't let them sit under a female bishop. Different views are accommodated on what's considered to be a second-tier issue.

One of the arguments used to support the idea that its ok for Anglicans to differ on other matters of doctrine is that we are not a confessional church. Unlike, say, the Presbyterians with their Westminster Confession, we don't have a document that systematically outlines our beliefs. But the problem with this argument is that we do. We have several, in fact.

Many of the orders of service in the Books of Common Prayer contain the Creeds of the church - the systematic articulation of what we believe. When ministers are ordained (in Australia at least), the Ordinal has them publicly declare their acceptance of the authority of the Old and New Testaments. Then, when a member of the clergy is licensed to a ministry they publicly say that they

assent to the doctrine of The Anglican Church of Australia as expressed in the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons and the Articles of Religion, as acknowledged in section 4 of the Constitution, and I believe that doctrine to be agreeable to the word of God.

and

declare my assent to the Fundamental Declarations of The Anglican Church of Australia as set out in sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Constitution.

Now, my issue at this point isn't to argue that these doctrines and declarations are right or wrong, good or bad, but simply to ask this: How could someone who doesn't truly believe all this stuff become a minister in the Anglican Church without massively compromising their integrity? How can it be that we've had leaders in the Church who don't believe in Christ's resurrection? Or in the uniqueness of Christ for salvation? Or in the existence of hell? While we might want to look at the institution's failure to weed them out before they got ordained, my question is, why didn't they opt out themselves? Where was their integrity in signing up?

It will always be the case that people will have different views on matters about which the Church has never formally stated its position. And there will always be room for strong debate on the complex issues of the day. And it will always be that different people have different interpretations of the meaning of officially drafted doctrines. And it will always happen that people's views, and even an institution's position, will change over time. But even when you add up up all these, they still don't equal a church that has no fixed doctrinal position. And they certainly don't mean it's no big deal for a leader to swear to something that they don't actually believe.

Beyond the question of personal integrity, think also of the impact on the church at large. Why should anyone trust a church minister if it turned out that their public vows weren't sincere? How could the church expect anyone else to take their oaths seriously if ministers don't - is a wedding vow just something you're meant to say on the day too? What will people think that the church really stands for? This is a critical issue for the church. The reality must line up with the rhetoric.

Having said all this, I should add the footnote that I am, of course, just discussing a small minority of leaders in this post. But even a few can have a significant impact on the whole organisation and so it's worth flagging the vital need for integrity among the clergy on matters of belief.

Victorian Tudor Rose

I visited the Victorian State Rose Garden the other day. The central display is arranged in a giant Tudor Rose. How 'bout that?

Baptismal Home

Clearly, the best thing about this picture is that it provides a great opportunity to make fun of my late 90s stylin'. However, once we're over that...

This is me and my grandmother revisiting the church where I was baptised, St Andrew's Sonning in the Diocese of Oxford. It's a flint church that was rebuilt in the mid nineteenth century after having probably been first established in - wait for it - the early 7th Century!

I don't know anything much about the church today, although judging by the statue above the archway, it probably held onto much of its Roman Catholic heritage during the Reformation and judging by its website, it looks like its still a way further up the candlestick than I'm used to. But there it is.

The church building is also directly opposite an original Tudor inn, The Bull. This place has a good reputation for food and I remember a great meal there with my grandmother that day.

Turns out that the pub is actually owned by the church. I presume it's leased out but if the church ran it themselves it could be a truly fantastic place for ministry. Perhaps if I go back again one day and become vicar...

This is all something a bit light. Next week, I want to think some more about Anglican integrity...

Simeon on Church Organisation

I'm reading through Moule's biography of Charles Simeon at the moment and am finding it incredibly encouraging because of what it says of both Simeon's ministry and also his character.

Following on from yesterday's post regarding the need for Anglican Church ministers to keep their Word ministry central, I think Simeon's refections on church organisation are very helpful. Moule quotes the following from a letter Simeon wrote to the Bishop of Winchester in 1829

I have seen, my Lord, of very recent date a little pamphlet, where a Minister is set forth in Herbert's way as the father, the physcian, &c., &c., of his parish; but my judgment did not go along with it. In a very small parish these duties may be combined; but it appears to me that, comparatively, this is serving tables. ... The giving himself to the Word of God and prayer seems to me to be [the pastor's] peculiar duty; and the paternal part (of administering relief, &c.) should, I think, be delegated to others under his superintendence, as Moses delegated many of his duties to the seventy employed by him.

Then this statement of how he had put his beliefs into practice

This is what I have done myself for nearly fifty years; I have thirty (male and female) in their different districts, and I preach an annual Sermon in aid of their efforts. By these, I hope, great good has been done; whilst by their supplying my lack of service, I have been left at liberty to follow that line of duty which was more appropriate to my own powers, and which I could not have prosecuted if I had not thus contrived to save my time.

Here we see that Simeon had emplaced a system of church leadership that retained the authority of the senior minister, that embodied the distinction between 'presbyters' and 'deacons', that valued the real leadership of volunteers and lay people, that took individual gifting seriously, that increased ministry effectiveness and that prioritised the Word and prayer.

At one level, I find this to be really impressive stuff but at the same time, I kinda think it's not rocket science. All Simeon really did was to embrace explicit biblical ideas about church leadership and organisation. I guess the real encouragement for me then is that he shows that it's entirely possible for this to work and flourish within the Anglican system.