www.gospelinthecity.com

The debate about allocation of resources is being framed in terms of generosity – in this case, the call for the parishes to be generous to the central Diocesan ministries.

This is a mistake, for 2 reasons.

pic from flickr by Jim in Times Square

The first is that the call for generosity applies absolutely equally to both sides of the equation; it applies as much to the central organisations (‘be generous to front line parish ministry by not asking for as much for your own operations’) as it does to the parishes. In other words, these 2 calls to generosity cancel each other out as far as decision making is concerned.

Which leads to the second point, which actually is more important. The fact is that the 2 groups of ministries – parish  and central Diocesan – are not equal partners. It is our evangelical understanding of the doctrine of the church which says that the heart of the Diocese is the parishes, and the central Diocesan activity is there to support and serve the ministry of the parishes. In other words, the default is that resources belong at the front line; we only divert resources from there to do things that will enhance that front line work, and we try to keep that to a minimum.

Think about, say, World Vision, or Compassion.  The goal is to get resources to those who need it most, the under-reourced kids. But to do that, there needs to be a structure (CEO, web-designer, fundraisers, etc)  that raises the money – and that structure will chew up some of the money that is raised. It’s one of the things you take into account when you decide who to give to – how much they use for admin. My understanding is that 5-10% is about the right number.

As it turns out, we allocate about 10% to central Diocesan activities – around $8M (adding up both the Endowment of the See – the Bishops – $3M; and the Synod expenditure – $5M), and total parish offertories are around $80M. The $8M goes towards funding terrific support structures, like Moore and Youthworks Colleges, the Synod itself, the bishops team etc.

In sum, the issue is not generosity, it’s strategy. And the crucial thing about strategy is keeping the goal crystal clear. The way to win Sydney for Christ is only ever going to be through the front ministry of the parishes.

Thanks for the comments. I hear what some have said, and think I was probably a bit to sharp in my original post. But there is something here worth talking about.

I looked up the ACL website – there’s nothing in its desire, character, policy objectives or activities that indicates that endorsing all the evangelical candidates would be problematic. In fact, it would seem to make sense, given the statements.

Well, you say, why should they endorse other people’s nominations? What’s the problem with keeping it ‘tight” – that is, recommending the same number of people as there are positions? A couple of things about that.

First, since it always nominates ‘tightly’ as well as recommends ‘tightly’ – exactly the same number of people as positions – that means the nomination and the recommendation will always perfectly align. As people have pointed out, it can only nominate people it knows, people you might call mates. Fair enough. But the upshot is that it is very hard to avoid the impression that it covers the field in nominations of those close enough to the decision makers on the ACL, and then supports its own nominations. In other words, that it’s power to the mates.

Which leads to the second point – and it’s a trickier one. I may have misjudged it, but the power of the recommendation letter is enormous. At a bald statistical level, what would be its success rate over, say, the last decade (the extent to which its advice is heeded)? 96%? 99%? Very significant power. Again, that’s OK, ACL does the work, ACL achieves its goals. But surely with that power comes equally great responsibility. and to leave the impression that that power is being exercised in favour of friends – those it knows to nominate – is at best dangerous, at worst seductive.

What’s more, inevitably – and despite the fact that letter explicitly tries to avoid this implication – the result of such power is that those who aren’t endorsed are seen as somehow less kosher. You can say all you like that it shouldn’t be that way – but my take on it is, that’s how it’s seen.

Of course, you say, people are free to be nominated by anyone. That’s absolutely true, but they will always know that unless it’s the ACL that nominates them, they will have someone else nominated against them and supported by the 90-something % successful ACL. Plenty of times people have been advised not to stand, and have pulled back, so they won’t be seen to be rocking the boat. Yes, we’re all big boys and girls, and it’s a rough and tough world, and it shouldn’t matter to someone how they go in an election! Easy to say, but only really credible from the lips of someone who has stood independently of the ACL.

These are just the realities of the situation.

I started the first post by saying that I believe in having an ACL – and I do. And I take the points that people have made. I make no attributions of motive, I get that it’s a big Diocese, and we can hardly expect the ACL council members to know everyone etc.

But ..

It’s all just a bit too neat, don’t you think?

Excitingly, quite a few have registered already! Don’t miss out!

The Diocese rightly allows office bearers to all sorts of positions – hundreds by the time you add them all up, from School Councils to central committees – to be elected by the Synod. That’s the right place for this power to reside, and that means elections. At the same time, the overwhelming majority of Synod reps simply won’t know the overwhelming majority of nominees.

And so to have a body that takes responsibility for both nominating and then informing Synod reps about those nominees is a good thing. It fulfils a vital mission – to preserve the evangelical character of the Diocese. Importantly, a body like the ACL depends on trust – the trust of the Synod reps that the mission of preserving the evangelical character of the Diocese really is the mission of the ACL.

But …

That mission can degenerate into a terrible shadow mission. A shadow mission is a corrupted version of mission, the hidden agenda behind the stated agenda. And the temptation for the ACL is to speak of the evangelical character of the Diocese, but pursue something far less noble – preserve power amongst mates.

The Sydney Synod starts next Monday, and it is the once-every-3-years test of which mission the ACL is pursuing. Why? Because every 3 years there are a bunch of elections. Rightly, the ACL nominate all sorts of people for the different positions, and then will distribute a recommendation on who to vote for. And right there is the perfect test.

Because, other people apart from the ACL will have made nominations of evangelical candidates as well. And so it becomes very clear.

If the ACL is resisting the temptation to become just a power-clique, and instead fulfil its mission of the much more noble and broad goal of preserving the evangelical character of the Diocese, it will recommend anyone who is an evangelical, not just those whom it has nominated, even if that means that more people are recommended than the number of positions available. It will continue to deserve our trust.

On the other hand, if it recommends only those whom it nominates, and declines to recommend other evangelical candidates, then it will have broken trust with us. It will be saying one thing, and doing another. It will be pursuing a shadow mission.

Sometimes, this is justified on the grounds that unless the vote is ‘tight’ – only recommend for the number of positions – it might be possible for an anglo-catholic to ‘get through the middle’. This sounds good, but is mathematically almost impossible. (I can show this if anyone’s interested).

So, if you’re a Synod rep, stay tuned for your ACL letter – and see whether the ACL deserves your trust.

One interesting feature is that the booklet for the conference is essentially the unedited version of Tim Keller’s next book, called Centre Church.

So, get in quick, because numbers are limited.

Gospel in the City_Sydney

For the Sydney Diocese, money has never been tighter. The losses incurred in the GFC continue to rumble down the pipe-line. Until now, the response has been to cut back. And that’s been exactly the right thing to do – central activities can be important, but they are not the front line.

The current proposal is to stop cutting back, and to find more income, and there is only one place that can come from – taxing the parishes.

It’s included in a document you can read here, for the pre-Synod briefings this week (the particular report starts on p. 83).

It looks harmless enough – a suggestion for a set of new principles for the Diocesan budget. What stands out is the fact that 2 groups of costs are to be shifted away from being covered by central income, and onto the parishes.

One calculation suggests this could amount to $2-2.5M!

The reasoning for this shift is unconvincing.

Although it’s not argued for in any detail, there are a couple of hints that the basis of shifting these costs to the parishes is the fact that they are necessary for us as a Diocese. But that’s not a reason, it’s a logical leap, a fallacy – the fact that they are necessary simply means they should be the first expenditures we make (from funds available to the Synod  from the Diocesan endowment), not that the parishes should pay.

If we had no central funds available at all, then it would make sense that the parishes should bear the cost. But we still do have central funds – not as much as previously – but still nearly $5M in 2012 for the Synod, and more from the Endowment of the See (the Fund that currently pays for the bishops).

The only legitimate argument that the parishes should pay is that the particular item of central expenditure is more important than front line parish ministry.

So here’s the thing – our conviction (up til now) has been that the parishes are the centre of the Diocese. It’s front line ministry that matters most. We don’t hold the view of other Dioceses, who see great significance in the office of bishop, a central bureaucracy etc. Our commitment is to evangelism, preaching, prayer, pastoring, the local church in missional mode.

If this proposal is adopted, what we’ll be saying is that to the tune of around $2M, front line ministry is less important than centralised programs.

Surely we can’t say that?

Two thoughts.

First, it is in part a pastoral concern that motivates the question I asked. For introverts of tender conscience and intense nature, who frequently look inwards and don’t like what they see, equating faith with an affection can become crushing. The key pastoral move here is to get them to look outward to Christ, hence faith as a vector. Only there will they find a way out of their doubts.

Second, and even crazier than the initial question. It is common to suggest that regeneration precedes faith, and that seems to make sense. However, my understanding is that this is not how Calvin put it. For him, faith preceded both justification and sanctification, and in sanctification he included regeneration! See McGrath’s book Iustituia Dei for a really brilliant analysis of this.

One of my critiques of NT Wright has always been precisely this – in other words, he never quite threw off the hyper-reformed framework of his earliest days (when he co-authored – while a uni student! – The Grace of God in the Gospel). By the way, this is why he doesn’t see justification as the moment of ‘transfer’ – the real transfer occurs with regeneration. My point – the irony that Piper and Wright share exactly this same theological deep structure.

And even more ironic – as I understand it, it is also the Roman Catholic ‘Ordo salutis’. I have always wondered how the hyper-reformed scheme came full circle like this.

For Calvin, as I said, faith precedes both justification and regeneration, because faith is what unites us to Christ, and it is only in union with Christ that we have either righteousness or life (justification or regeneration), not prior to union with Christ by faith. Logically, what that must mean – if faith is to be preserved as a gift – is that God does a non-regenerative work in us as he gives the gift of faith, which then unites us to Christ and all his benefits.