I do however think that if a person has been given by God the financial means to get themselves through bible college without government support, they should seriously consider doing so, even if that requires working in the secular workforce for a longer period of time than they might have otherwise.

Which was exactly the case for those of us who went through College in earlier times.

I must say that I have emailed the Principal of PTC, Melbourne asking him some questions on the current situation for our (Presbyterian) students.I am concerned that a number of responses on this thread are saying that the denomination has cut its support for theological training on the basis that loans are available from Government (ie taxpayer funding) with the knowledge that these loans are most unlikely to be repaid either in part or in whole.

Is my understanding correct?

If it is, then are we not leaving ourselves open to the charge of hypocrisy when we argue our (ethical) positions in the public domain on abortion, civil unions, film censorship, and so on?

Jeremy Halcrow - 15 January 2008 04:46 PM

2. Are you suggesting that the Federal Government has knowingly entered into a situation to pay for theological education?

This was actually my assumption until I read this thread. I was told that the government were told by the colleges that most of their graduates would never be able to pay it back, but still wanted to press on with the FEE-HELP scheme. It was described to me as their way of partaking in “social justice” or something. But thise does not come from any reliable source. (If this breaks any forum rule I’m sorry, but I don’t state it as fact, I’m only stating what my previous assumption was)

I have no problem at all with a Christian making use of FEE-HELP - anymore than I have a problem with a Christian using HECS or even unemployment benefits. We are citizens of this country, and are entitled to use the services provided to citizens.

My major concern with the system is that College will allow costs to blow out, knowing that FEE-HELP provides an effectively bottomless jar of money to draw upon. There will also be the temptation for the diocese to lessen it’s financial commitment to the college, knowing that the funds are available elsewhere.

And prospective students should not be cavalier about the $50,000 debt they are incurring. It is a real debt that will follow them around for the rest of their lives. The government may well cut the repayment threshold in the future (that has happened with HECS in the past). Or they may leave the clergy (as many do), and find themselves paying off their theological education out of their new, secular earnings.

I cannot believe that this discussion is going on without the moderator or the author of this thread contacting Moore College and asking some questions about government policy and FEE help, as Chris Little has suggested.  The damage done to reputations is enormous when words like ‘rort’ are used in these discussions when the facts are not made clear.

ummm its 5.30pm Phillip.

I may have more info tommorrow.

To clarify:

1. I believe Gordon Cheng is moderator of this section and I have no special powers here to delete or modify comments.

2. I think myself, David Palmer and Shane used some strong language but it was in the context of saying that this may be how the general public may perceive the arrangement.

3. David Palmer did say ‘hopefully unintentional rort’ in reference to his own Presbyterian church which he has contacted for further info.

4. If subsidising theological study was the stated policy of the previous Federal Govt that does significantly alter the situation.

That said, we should all be aware that the secular press has been known to quote direct from these threads.

Jeremy asks:

1. Are these documents available to the public? If not, why would you expect MTC would give them to me?

2. Are you suggesting that the Federal Government has knowingly entered into a situation to pay for theological education?

The answer to this second question is definitely YES. When we were deciding at Moore to take advantage of Fee Help, our amazing registrar Alan Hohne did an incredible amount of homework on this… which included asking the relevant public servants whether they were aware that many clergy would not pay the loan back. The answer was - yes, they were perfectly aware, but that it was a cost they were factoring in. In proportion to the actual budget involved the losses incurred by a couple of hundred clergy not paying it back are miniscule AND they recognise that clergy provide a social capital that they can’t replicate.

I can’t say what documents are and are not available to the public at this distance, but there was never any secret. At the time, many students had some of the reservations expressed here, and so there was information explaining FEE-HELP to them. Some people were inherently disposed not to incur debt of any kind. But this is a different kind of loan, more like HECS than an old-fashioned bank loan.

BTW, the figures for women who don’t pay back their HECS loans because they don’t earn enough, or because they take up home duties, is (so I understand) quite high. Yet, the government recognises that education is in itself a social good that it ought to invest in.

Thanks Michael. That’s very helpful. I withdraw my previous comments.

Shane, it may not be wise for the Diocese to become reliant on a policy that may well change, but where is the ethical problem if the Govt has decided to assume the burden?

I’m still looking for any helpful info on the public record.

I found the Southern Cross article from the time, but it only alludes to the concerns doesn’t spell them out.

Oh, and Gordon is on holidays, so he ain’t moderating ANYTHING.

Thank you Michael Jensen, that was a very helpful post. I knew Alan Hohne over 30 years ago when I was at St Matthews WPH.

Thank you also Jeremy for your clarifying post of 5.35 pm - I was considering the PR aspects but also our own integrity as the Church (regardless of denominational stripe). As far as my own denomination is concerned I simply don’t know what we are doing - hence my question.

I would hate to think we are causing palpitations to guys in College(s) who in good faith have signed on for a HECS loan. Get your heads down guys (m+f) for a great year of study and ministry, serving our Lord Jesus in 2008!

Cheers

David

Rant..I paid for one year at College, and one year at St Andrew’s Hall, .I was overseas as a missionary for 17 years, came back, worked, got a counselling degree AND paid back my HECS debt (don’t have enough money to retire on, but I paid my debt.  End of rant.
This has been a helpful discussion to get me thinking about how one person’s “lawful debt” is another person’s right.  I think I am with Shane on this one.  I also think the world would see it as a “rort”, tho legally I can see it is not.  That is making me ponder what is really behind my “rant”.  Hmmmm.  something to pray about, I think,
Gill.

I have received an an initial response to my queries.

I have been asked to report to you guys that the figures quoted in the SMH article are incorrect, and thus it exaggerates the burden on the taxpayer.

Given that its 10pm I have no more details at this point.

Interesting…

‘Burden’ is such a loaded term, too!

Ladies and gentlemen,

For the record, you should be aware that even though Gordon is on holidays this thread is still being monitored. The reason no action has been taken at this point is because I am of the opinion that nothing approaching liable or defamation has been stated.

That said, Jeremy’s reminder stands; this is a forum as open to the media as it is to you. So, let me finish by encouraging you to continue to speak - debate - the truth in love.

Kind regards,

Mark Hadley
Editor

From a strictly economic point of view, I don’t see the problem. We fund higher education primarily in order to help people develop specialised vocational skills. Clergymen provide a service that people are willing to pay for. The government investing in the education of clergy is no different to the government investing in the education of, say, electrical engineers.

The fact that many clergy currently only pay a small amount of their FEE-HELP debts simply reflects the way the numbers are falling at the moment. The situation could easily change. Clerical salaries could rise significantly above the threshold, for example. The government could change the threshold. Or the rules might be changed so that the housing and expense allowances are taken into consideration when calculating salary for this purpose, even though they are effectively tax free.

I suspect this latter is what will happen if this turns into a big issue, and the clergy with outstanding FEE-HELP debts will either take an effective pay cut, or parishes will increase salaries to compensate them.

Regardless, the whole thing is a storm in a tea-cup.

Gill Evans - 15 January 2008 09:01 PM

Rant..I paid for one year at College, and one year at St Andrew’s Hall, .I was overseas as a missionary for 17 years, came back, worked, got a counselling degree AND paid back my HECS debt (don’t have enough money to retire on, but I paid my debt.  End of rant.
This has been a helpful discussion to get me thinking about how one person’s “lawful debt” is another person’s right.  I think I am with Shane on this one.  I also think the world would see it as a “rort”, tho legally I can see it is not.  That is making me ponder what is really behind my “rant”.  Hmmmm.  something to pray about, I think,
Gill.

Wow, that’s really something you’ve been able to do there.

It makes me think of Paul though. He worked his way so as to not be a burden to anyone, but at the same time taught that teachers were entitled to a living. Biblically it seems to me that both are acceptable. It’s a personal issue, and one I’ll have to deal with as I think I’d be naturally most likely to take the laziest option.

The damage done to reputations is enormous when words like ‘rort’ are used in these discussions when the facts are not made clear.

Hi Phillip
I am not sure whose reputations you are concerned about impuning, but I would have thought that the Herald article is impuning clergy who are percieved to be a burden on taxpayers and therefore impuning the glorious gospel of our saviour. If it is true we are rorting the gospel of its power.
On that Craig, it is not a purely economic matter, it is our societies perception of inappropraite behaviour whichwe are potentially giving basis for. The sheer weight of passages that emphasise the conduct of elders in the church is hardly a ‘storm in a tea cup’ issue.

The perception by some is that some clergy are rorting. Fact. they think we are a burden.
That perception alone raise important questions which are worthwhile discussion in these forums. Yes we want facts, but lets be honest brother Phillip, we are not totally poking around in the dark in regards to facts with this one. 

I would be glad that the secular media would be bothered to glance at this discussion and maybe even commend some healthy introspection rather than the tight lipped no comment approach that is clamped by brown shirt moderation. ITS A FORUM!

It was wise of John Woodhouse to commend a system that promotes equity in his herald quote.  This says we are happy to be good citizens and get less for the good of others if there were a review of the present system - wise words in the presense of ears who will probably hear only what they want to hear.

At the time when fee help was introduced and reportedly commended by the college I can remember being able to access an electronic copy of the reasoning behind it but unfortunately it is no longer avaialbe from the Moore college website from what I can ascertain. I do not know who the author was but it is fair to say it is a college publication that directly discussed the issues pertainly to taking on a debt for the sake of theolgocal education.

Shane, it may not be wise for the Diocese to become reliant on a policy that may well change, but where is the ethical problem if the Govt has decided to assume the burden?

The government is not giving anyone the money, they are loaning it with a pessimistic forecast of return. It is still a debt to be paid.

I would have thought that they are dozens of instances where the government has made laws which free us to do all kinds of things but we chose not to.

For instance the diocese helpfully places conservative self rulings on what a tax exempt ministry expense account can be used for. At present it is capped at 30% stipend with guidlines stipulated even though there is no such tax law that restricts us to 30%. We have in effect withheld our freedom for the sake of being tax paying citizens who are above reproach
( a junk draw term for ‘not open to accusation of whatever kind’). I fear that even with the relatively strict guidlines the MEA could easily be seen as being abused.

Just because some bureacrats say its OK doesn’t necessariy make it ok in gospel terms. We need to be not only doing the right thing but reasonably be seen to be doing the right thing.

A key issue I believe is beling indebted to another even when we have means to repay. Further stilll being indebted and making no effort to repay seems to directly disregard exhortations like Romans 12:17 and Romans 13:8-10. which particularly links tax avoidance and indebtedness to the commandments against stealing and coveting. 
Am I confused and moving beyond what the scripture says to imagine that the apostle might say “if you owe taxes, pay taxes, revenue then revenue “ ?

It interesting that when Peter is asked by the collectors in Matt 17 if jesus pays tax, Peter reples yes, then Jesus explains his own exemption as the son who is to be honoured, then immediately and miraculously supplies a 4 drachma coin so that he can pay his tax and peters in order to not offend. The son is worthy to be honoured yet he serves by paying a tax in order to not offend?! Sure there must be some in that for us?

Thanks Shane. I think you make points I would agree with entirely.

However, I don’t perceive there to be a groundswell of opinion that clergy are rorting the system (admittedly, I am in the UK at the moment!). At the moment all we have are the stats of one professor and an article that (according to Jeremy) got the facts and figures wrong. Let’s not assume everyone is tut-tutting about this. Even the article is not purporting that we are doing the wrong thing in so many words. There is not a hint of the word ‘rort’ in the article!!

Remember, too, that this isn’t a loan in the strictest sense of the term. Or at least, the terms of the loan are explicitly that repayment is geared to ability to repay. If you are doing Christian ministry, the govt has deemed this repayment enough: you are building the community in ways that even non-church going tax-payers benefit, so clear your conscience and lets get on with it!

Letters, Sydney Morning Herald, Wednesday 16/1/2008

Particularly not a burden

As, prospectively, one of those graduate clergy who “represent a particular burden to the taxpayer”, I point out that what the Australian Bureau of Statistics calls “religious services” makes up 0.3 per cent of Australia’s working population, and is hardly a major slice of the FEE-HELP pie ("Student debts out of control”, January 15).

And as a low-income profession it seems quite equitable that the debt is paid back over a longer period. Many students entering postgraduate theological colleges have given up lucrative secular professions and are unlikely to be there just to take advantage of FEE-HELP - which is, after all, a loan, not a hand-out.

Jon Guyer Newtown