AUDIO
 |
Phillip Jensen speaks on Anger as part of a series on emotions in the Christian life, delivered at the Australia Day Convention 2010
|
It is a privilege greater than I can put into words to share in what the Lord our God is doing at Moore College. The Lord continues to send to the College the finest body of Christian men and women it has ever been my privilege to meet, to study and prepare for a life of Christian ministry. What is happening at Moore College is extraordinary.
Of course there is a foolishness in this kind of talk. But there is a time for us to soberly recognise the goodness of God’s work among us, and its importance for the cause of Christ, for the cause of evangelical Christianity in this city and around the world, for the cause of growing and planting churches, for the cause of the light of the gospel shining in the darkness of this world, for the cause of sinners being saved.
The heart of Moore College is evangelical faithfulness, joined to theological seriousness, expressed in mission-mindedness.
By evangelical faithfulness, I mean a deep and personal commitment to the evangelical faith expressed in a real love for the Lord Jesus Christ and trust in his sin-bearing death, a firm confidence in the written word of God and a whole-hearted desire for Christ to be made known in all the world and that many might be saved.
By theological seriousness I mean intellectual integrity in which truth matters. Ours is not a piety that is threatened by genuine intellectual enquiry, nor does it shrink from hard questions, difficult data or challenging criticism, but deals with these things openly and honestly, confident that faith and truth are friends, not enemies.
By mission-mindedness I mean that all we learn is not knowledge simply for its own sake. Rather, our knowledge of God and his ways equips us to serve him, his people and the world by making him known.
With all this in mind I want to talk to you all about a difficult complex of challenges that is facing Moore College right now. Challenges are nothing new. And the God who is working among us, I have no doubt, is not daunted by them.
But from where I stand, I feel very deeply the need for wisdom, strength and even courage from above.
CHALLENGES
The complex of challenges consists of at least six crises that face us right now.
a. Global Financial Crisis
In 2010 we expect the College to begin to feel the serious effects of the global financial crisis.
The most obvious expression of this may be a cut in the Synod grant to the College, on which we depend for much that we do. Should this happen, there will need to be painful changes. For a time at least we will not be able to do everything we currently do in the way we currently do it.
In this, of course, we are sharing the difficulties of very many in our country, and around the world. We should not imagine that somehow we can remain unaffected by this crisis.
b. Enrolments
There has been a decline in first year enrolments for 2009 after many years of steady growth. It was only a few years ago (2006) that we had our largest enrolment ever: our present fourth year. When they leave us next year, there will be a further substantial drop in student numbers. This trend might continue for some years.
Hindsight is a marvelous thing, but the drop in first year enrolments was a surprise. If it does continue, I am concerned because the need for gospel ministers is not dropping. We are analysing, as best we can, the reasons for this drop and whether the drop in numbers will continue, or turn out to be a temporary blip. There are consequences (including financial) for how we do things.
c. Generational Culture Change
The whole world seems to be talking about the generational changes that our society is experiencing as so-called ‘GenY’ make their mark. The fact that so many of our students are those they label ‘GenY’ means that these changes are acutely relevant to us. ‘GenY’ sees the world and life very differently from the generations before them. There are weaknesses and strengths in this. But there is no dispute that as a result our students, and many of our potential students, have changing expectations of the Christian life and visions for Christian ministry.
I cannot analyse this further here, but these changes have brought pressure for change to the College that is, in my experience, unprecedented.
d. Reputation
For many years Moore College has relied on a strong reputation among the evangelical Christian community for the quality of the theological education and preparation for ministry provided. I believe we can no longer depend on that reputation, especially among 20 to 30 year olds, many of whom should at least be considering coming here. There is a perception that it is “too hard” or “too academic.” This is partly related to the generational cultural changes. There are other factors.
However at the College we are committed to taking the steps needed to win hearts and minds to see the extraordinary importance and value of the evangelical faithfulness, theological seriousness and ministry/mission mindedness given to us at Moore College.
e. New Library Project
The long term planning for the new library project is about to bear fruit and we anticipate being ready to begin building, perhaps by the end of this year.
This project is undoubtedly vital for the long-term work of Moore College, but brings its own challenges.
f. From North America
With all of these things in the air (and adding energy to some of them) a new and powerful Christian movement from America is sweeping the evangelical scene in this country – or so it seems. Like many similar movements before it, it promises a great deal, is backed by massive enthusiasm and led by attractive and hugely gifted leaders. This time, however, it involves definite views about theological education.
This movement is very much part of the scene where we seek to serve the cause of Christ as best we can — and it is a movement that has quite definite ideas about how we should be serving that cause. We are committed to listening, learning and carefully responding.
There are more things that could be said, but I wonder if you see what I mean by a quite extraordinary complex of challenges? None of the six phenomena mentioned is completely new, but my impression is that each one, in different ways, is ‘coming to a head’ this year. Together they create a quite extraordinary moment!
RESPONSES
All this calls for a very careful response. Perceptions have to be distinguished from reality, while recognizing that perceptions have their own power. On the one hand there is danger in the knee jerk response to short term ‘market pressures’ that loses sight of the long-term vital role that I do not doubt Moore College has to play for the health of evangelical Christianity in this city and indeed in the world. Serious questions need to be asked about some aspects of the challenges I have tried to describe briefly. On the other hand there is danger in a conservative reaction that perpetuates a vision for the College formulated decades ago, but which fails to serve the cause of Christ in our very different day.
I can only indicate, in quite general terms, the kind of action I believe is needed.
Clarify, reaffirm and commit to what must not change
In a time of turbulent change it is all the more important to understand well that which must be kept and defended. What is it about Moore College that has enabled its remarkable influence for good over the years, by God’s grace, in building and strengthening evangelical Christianity in this city and beyond?
As I have said already, the heart of Moore College is evangelical faithfulness, joined to theological seriousness, expressed in mission-mindedness.
If this is the essential heart of Moore College, then it is reasonable for us to be open to question, challenge or change anything we do so long as it is proper expression of what we believe we are here to do.
Plan now for major cuts to the usual sources of income
There will need to be substantial changes in the operations of the College in the wake of the financial crisis and the drop in student numbers — even if this is (as I hope) temporary.We are working on the options available and evaluating their consequences.
Evaluate the possibilities for greater flexibility in our theological education
It is reasonably said that Moore College is unusually inflexible in the way in which we offer our main theological education program. “Full time, four year, residential theological education is what we do at Moore College.” In the past this has been because we have considered that the model of theological education provided is in fact the ‘best’ model.
This model has served the cause very well.
However, while the content of the Moore College theological education is still highly desired, many are now telling us that the College’s inflexibility does not meet the range of needs of potential students. Good as it may be, it may be accessed by a diminishing number.
The inflexibility of theological education at Moore College is seen in the following:
only available on campus (nothing on line)
only full time (nothing half-time, part-time or by intensives)
only with Greek
only the set curriculum with minimal specialisation or electives
only residential (although we are not currently able to provide accommodation for all students).
It is important to understand that the desire for ‘flexibility’ arises from a view of the role and nature of theological education for ministry and mission today, which itself needs evaluation. However the College is here to serve, and we want to listen and work through whether and how we should introduce greater flexibility.
Review the academic workload
The reputation of the College among some is that it is “crushingly academic.”
The reputation is exaggerated, but arises in part from the commitment to intellectual integrity I mentioned earlier. However, there are matters to be addressed, and we will be carefully looking again at the matter of student workload and related concerns in a review of the whole BD program currently under way.
Commit to raising the standards of preaching
It is being put about by some that to learn to preach you do not go to Moore College.
This is one of a number of points where, in the things that are being said, there is a frustrating mixture of something true (namely, we do want our students and graduates to be better preachers) and alarming misunderstanding.
Whether Moore College prepares people well to be Christian preachers depends a lot on what you think preaching is (or ought to be). There are some worrying signs that a view of preaching is widely assumed that needs to be looked at more closely.
Here is not the place to develop this, but the making of a preacher involves at least four elements:
a. Handle the Bible wellc[Biblical Studies]
b. Know what you are talking about [Doctrine/Ethics]
c. Christian character
[Pastoral care]
d. Preparation and communication skills [Homiletics]
In my view Moore College is second to none in developing a, b and c. This has, rightly, been our priority. We also provide solid training in d.
However the focus of the current discussion is almost entirely on homiletics. It is, I think, assumed that training that does d best will be the best will be the best preparation for a preacher. I simply do not believe that is true.
Be that as it may, it is time that the College put more effort and energy into homiletics training. This is another matter that we will be addressing.
Commit to raising the awareness and concern for mission
Another often reported but equally disturbing assertion is that Moore College will not prepare you for mission. A glance at a world map showing where our graduates are serving and the fifty countries with our 5,000 External Studies students is enough to provide some response to what is being said. Likewise the numerous groups (initiated and led by students) committed to praying for various parts of the world is evidence a profound mission-heart in the College.
However, I do believe that there is always room for improvement in raising awareness among us of the many cultures of today’s Sydney as well as the wider world, and a deeper appreciation of what is involved in taking the gospel of Christ into those cultures. Traditional theological education has had a very British ‘context’, a limitation that really needs to change. The current review of the whole BD program will attempt to address these issues seriously. More immediately there are a number of aspects of the College program that can be strengthened to serve the same end.
Commit to greater engagement with the Christian community
Moore College has always had its critics. It is, as always, important to us to listen to those who have criticisms today. We have much to learn, I do not doubt.
However, we need the reality, not the rumor, of Moore College to be better known. We will be taking steps to increase our presence among in the wider Christian community, particularly among the 20 to 30 year olds. I hope that we will be able to expand the involvement of students and Faculty in the churches of greater Sydney.
Having said all this it is important to pause again and recognise that, although the challenges are substantial, Moore College has a vital role in serving God’s people and our needy world in these turbulent times. Please pray that the God on whom we depend for all things will provide the wisdom we seek for the challenges and opportunities before us.
The article has been adapted from an address given by the Principal, John Woodhouse, to the students at Moore College on March 20, 2009
I think Moore college is offering brilliant theological education- however the denominational and local church systems Moore Graduates go into can stifle or mis-use them... and Moore can cop the feedback- which leads to less eagerness in the potential students. A stronger path to starting new ministries and church planting from day 1 would also attract a more robust type of theological student in my view.
with clarity, insight and humility you have modeled the evangelical faithfulness, intellectual seriousness and ministy/ mission mindness that you desire for your students.
interesting times ahead indeed - glad you are helping to steer the way.
From my own personal experience, this isn't just rhetoric or empty-words, but I've seen and been part of the openness to change and have enjoyed the open ears from a listening faculty.
Looking forward to seeing what the Lord might be pleased to do!
Here's an idea:
If the college can work out what it wants for its core course - and make that the residential full-time bit. (This would develop relationships that would continue when the student goes on to do other parts of the curriculum as electives/intensives/part-time.) A degree could be conferred upon completing the core plus a number of the other streams/modules.
I'm sure the Ministry Training & Development (after college training) could be integrated into this to provide ongoing education and ongoing relationships.
This strategy might allow a keen 20yr old bloke-worth-watching future-church-planter to do 2yrs of full-time ministry as a trainee (MTS), then study full time for 2 years and be ready to plant a church by 25. He could then continue part time for 5 more years (get his BD) and have done 7 years of ministry by the time he's 30! -just a thought!
Craig - about the Diploma of Church Planting - I think this discussion has been around before, but why do you think a church planter needs less theological training than a 'non- planter'? Surely they need the same, if not more! I did an excellent MA subject at Moore on church planting, and the base thinking skills provided by a BD were necessary to think through some of the very complicated issues raised.
I don't, necessarily. But we live in an impatient age, and there are some who will not wait for a 3 year degree before having a crack at church planting. You can either cater to that, or ignore it and let another college provide the training.
I imagine, too, you would be able to persuade quite a number of the diploma people to go on and do another 2 years for the BD.
I guess this is the dilemna facing the college - do you give people what they want, or what you think they need? If they stick exclusively to the latter, then the college will probably have to scale down operations (for a time at least).
I was recently listening to a talk from John Piper on Spurgeon and lessons from history. He made the point that one of the great problems of this age is that we tend to be impatient and not learn from history. Perhaps this is one of those moments.
Surely that is one thing our churches have been very good at? What else can be done?
I agree that we are in an impatient age, but that doesn't mean we have to give into it.
That is true. But if they are not going to bend, there will be some financial consequences (according to what John has written). I'm not sure how far that would go - possibly even up to staff redundancies.
But you wouldn't say what John has said if you were planning to essentially maintain the status quo. My gut tells me that he is preparing the ground for some fairly radical changes, perhaps changes that the old guard wont entirely approve of.
Who is the 'old guard'? What do they think about these issues?
Who is the 'old guard'? What do they think about these issues?
The phrase essentially means those who are currently in positions of authority and influence.
I echo those who have encouraged this genuine engagement with the challenges of the time.
And I support the idea of keeping the longer, demanding and residential BD for those looking to long term Bible teaching ministries of oversight, while creating more options and flexibility with other training strands.
One of the reasons I haven't contributed to these forums much is that the discussions can quickly get off track into speculation and rumour. I think two points you have made fit into that category.
"I'm not sure how far that would go - possibly even up to staff redundancies" I think we can leave that sort of difficult thinking up to those who are in the know - rather than discussing it here from our position of collective ignorance.
"My gut tells me that he is preparing the ground for some fairly radical changes, perhaps changes that the old guard wont entirely approve of." Maybe so - but why try and turn what may or may not happen in the future and who may or may not think positively or negatively about it into some discussion about 'the old guard' (whoever they are - but I suspect we actually owe them a lot and should listen to their wisdom rather than making negative implications about them?)
I'm not sure how this sort of speculation is helpful?
With great respect, your comment strikes me as a, "Don't you worry about that, leave it in the hands of those who are older and wiser." But this sort of thinking has possibly led to the sorts of problems Moore is now dealing with.
I also have immense respect for the old guard. But I feel I should be able to offer a minor criticism without being put in the "enemies" basket. I don't really see "old guard" as a perjorative term, but if someone is offended by it, then I apologise.
In all seriousness Pete, what sort of comments *would* you consider valid here, apart from "Amen John! Good speech! Glad you are in charge!"
Ian, I think those in institutional authority *have* to be conservative, it's the nature of the beast.
And, in all frankness, I do believe our senior leadership are a bit "out of touch" with GenY. I think John implicitly acknowledged this in his talk when he spoke about the need to connect better with 20-somethings.
To what extent that impacts Moore College, They are clearly working on contingencies at the moment (like we are at AMS) This will be finalised when we all get the final damage bill from Standing Committee in a couple of months.
And here I was reading all those posts thinking it was Voldermort...
Perhaps it is unfair to generalize about our leaders.
Anyway, if you think the GenY connection is happening adequately, do you have any theories on why enrollment numbers have dropped?
The point I am making is that it may be unfair to make assumptions that the direction our leaders take is because they are "out of touch" rather than because they have biblical wisdom that drives them in that direction, which doubtless may seem wrong and conservative to (some, but perhaps not even the majority of) the GenY'ers.
I'm not so sure the 'I talk to people and this is what they say' is always helpful. We all have our particular group that we speak to and yes its good air the opinions of various people - but maybe we need to make sure that the opinion we are sharing is our own, or if its not - give a specific reference. The whole 'I speak to people and they know this and that and therefore it is right' is not great - people think and say all sorts of things - doesn't mean its right - in my case here at the moment the people who are thinking and saying things are all wearing face masks!
By the way, its interesting that here in Nth America it seems to me that the younger generation of preachers doesn't look to North America in the same way Aussies do. They seem to have a much greater respect here for elders - the Gospel Coalition forum last week was a great example - Tim Keller, John Piper and others of a similar generation telling the younger folks how it is.
good point Ian. old guard has a pejorative sense that is not always helpful. it would mean that as soon as you disagree you are a bad guy, or an old guy, or in Pete Sholls case a bad old guy (hi Pete :))
I wonder whether there's been way too much bad guy good guy young guy old guy talk that can become veiled slander.
Mark Driscoll (the name not to be named) may not have helped us in this regard with in his polemical quips that often pitch young guys against the old guys and vice versa. I can't work out if I am an old young guy or a young old guy!!!
Ironically, in his own context there is an incredible reverence for older men seen in places like the Gospel Coalition. we like his rhetoric but maybe misapply it in our context?
Craig has suggested that there will be those who would be reluctant to change the very thing that they cherish and have fought hard to preserve and advance. And rightly so. It has served people like me extremely well.
one of the challenges that the article flags is to stand for what principally matters whilst flexing on methods which can roll with the times. this dynamic is in every healthy organization and that brings a creative tension (and fears) with it.
and there is no speculation about cuts in funding - that is hard reality - a correlate of that is what John called " painful changes" . what is speculative is to say exactly what those changes are, where it will bite and hurt hardest.
It is loving of those in authority to weigh up the wisdom of young men doing this.
Connecting to younger generations does not necessarily mean giving them everything they want, but rather listening and weighing up the wisdom of their requests. Discussing, understand each others reasons, listening and searching the scriptures together will be involved.
It is always possible that standing against a particular trend may lead to less numbers and bring glory to God.
For sure. But the context was a question of whether the leadership are connecting with GenY or not.
I don't think one can affirm they are connecting on the one hand, and then complain that local youngsters don't respect their leaders like they do in the US.
good point Dianne
John has modelled this admirably.
I imagine discerning trends from large cultural shifts is more difficult.
e.g is Mars Hill Church, Acts 29 and the name just the latest faddish trend or representative of something more substantial., it would be great to hear John on that!
the main problem churches face is not that they are culturally out of touch, but that they are theologically out of tune.
So do you think Sydney Anglicanism is theologically "out of tune"? In which areas?
I guess I'd want to ask 'out of tune with who'? - but that aside, he makes an interesting point.
After reading the quote I re-read what John said in his address - and found myself thinking, if what the young man says is right, then that sounds like a pretty good argument for beefing up theological education, not cutting back. Are we putting too many eggs in the basket of 'cultural engagement' and 'getting things done quickly' at the cost of 'careful and thoughtful theology'
The vibe I'm getting from your comments is that you essentially think Moore is doing all the right things already, and they should just tough things out for a couple of years. Is that a fair summary?
I think the need for teachers/planters/evangelists to be 'rightly handling the word of truth' and a have a willingness to submit to this word is the big issue to be considered. Hence the importance of theological education that equips to this end is worth fighting for.
Of course I have a vested interest in what happens - its my job here in Mexico to have that interest.
I guess the greater interest I have is the development of theological education, its engagement with trends, different generations, full time / part time - all that sort of stuff. I suppose my thought at the moment is that there seems to be a bit of a push to get big changes happening because culture has changed or there is a culture of change. It would be a shame if quality theological education got pushed to the side for the sake of change.
One big problem Moore seems to have is marketing. John alluded to some problem perceptions that are out there.
I'd forgotten that you are using PTC material in Mexico. I think that is great work, I have missionary friends who would love to see something similar happen in Fiji. It may be that PTC ends up being the single greatest gift the diocese makes to global Christianity. John's speech suggested that Distance Education will get more rather than less emphasis in any reforms that may take place.
Locally, the issue is how to leverage the distance ed skill-base for cross-cultural ministry in Sydney. Do we need more Pete Scholls for the Arabic and Chinese-speaking worlds?
In that light, Craig has a point that it is a marketing issue.
However in my research for various news articles, I have come across concerns from some Non-English speaking churches about the academic requirements at Moore which is leading some of them to favour ministry training through other Bible colleges.
Indeed apart from a handful of individuals influenced by Mark Driscoll this is the only demographic where I personally think there is a genuine transfer effect from Moore to SMBC.
(Before anyone asks - I have already shared this with the senior staff at MTC and I don't think it was a surprise.)
The 'Pete Sholls' for the other language groups are starting to happen (although I hope they're not really like me!) Great inroads are being made with the PTC material in French (for west and 'Indian Ocean' Africa), various Indian languages, Chinese (not sure if Mandarin or Cantonese) and of course the entire course is available in Spanish. Moore graduates are teaching the courses in places as diverse as South Africa, Malawi, Nigeria, India, Mexico (cough, oink), Chile, throughout Europe, Asia and North America.
The great thing about this international work is that as resources are developed for other languages and cultures, they can be used in multicultural Sydney. For example, I know several South American folks living in Sydney who are doing PTC in Spanish.
I guess while I'm in 'ad' mode - we should be doing everything we can to encourage our anglo folks in Sydney to do the PTC. It is a world class course and provides a wonderful theological education that many around the world are making great sacrifices to access.
1st year 19 of 108 (17.5%)
2nd year 14 of 102 (13.7%)
3rd year 9 of 67 (13.5%)
4th year 5 of 46 (11%)
Its a bit harder to spot the other ethnicities, but I'm sure they are there - and on the faculty as well. Athas, Poulos, Campbell and co. (and Robert Doyle is from Tasmania!)
Of course there's always room for improvement, but thats not a bad start.
That's a good idea. Another thing I can think of is the annual Moore College lectures. In my opinion, they should be delivered in a much less academic fashion. Nobody doubts the content is usually great but the delivery usually is not easily accessible. Let me just say, in the current format, I would always hesitate inviting to the annual lectures someone who is considering studying at College. And in my view, that's alarming.
The ironic thing, it seems to me, is that the style of the annual lectures often does not reflect the style of the lectures that students enjoy on a daily basis. I remember one of my favourite lecturers at College delivered an annual lecture on a very interesting topic & to my shock, it was no where as engaging as his usual lectures, because of its academic-ness. And when I asked him about it, he said that was intentional because the purpose of the annual lectures is different. That may be so, but I think the College could have used the annual lectures to better promote its image more among potential students, than among fellow academics elsewhere.
While I have heard from senior sources in the Diocese that the Chinese Christian Churches may be rethinking their training models, I have not had that confirmed from CCC themselves. So I am not prepared to draw any conclusions there. (Any CCC bods out there who can clarify that?)
My information is directly from Sydney-based African church leaders. I would imagine that Sydney's large Christian Polynesian / Islander communities are likewise eschewing Moore for similar reasons.
We need to stop thinking in a Chinese/Anglo dichotomy which betrays our social class background. Sydney is becoming a polyglot city of many ethnicities. Where I work at Parramatta - pick a random 10 people and you will probably have 10 different racial backgrounds.
I think you make a very good point. I agree.
Moore is in a position to offer so much but can miss the mark for 'ordinary' people with 'academic-ness' in some of its public exposure (formally and informally).
Perhaps more Moore for lay might be something to think about. For example, from the past, Broughton Knox’s weekly radio broadcast and pamphlets were a great source of learning for the lay. They were clear and understandable for a wide audience, but not lacking in rigorous thought.
John Woodhouse is a modern example of clarity with rigorous thought. As an ‘ordinary’ person I have heard recordings of John speaking overseas to a theologically educated audience and it was clear, profoundly insightful and very helpful.
In a two minute brainstorm here's a list of areas in which Moore College faculty are engaging at a 'non-academic' level - and I'm sure if I thought more the list could double!
-Writing for sydneyanglicans.net (for example Peter Bolt is doing great stuff as we write!)
-Speaking at weekends away, local conferences and events for churches throughout the diocese and beyond.
-Writing books that are useful for Christians of all walks of life. Barry Webb on Isaiah and Zechariah, Peter O'Brien on Ephesians and Philippians, John Woodhouse on 1 Samuel, Peter Bolt on the Underworld - I could go on.
- Writing regular articles for 'popular' journals such as 'The Briefing'
- Giving the Bible studies at synod
- providing important leadership and contributions to the discussion and provision of resources on matter of ethics and social issues in our country.
- speaking at external studies conferences throughout the country.
- speaking at Katoomba and CMS conferences.
- speaking at overseas conferences that are then made available so we can listen to them!
Surely with all this (and more) there is a place for careful, scholarly thought and 'highbrow' academic presentation. That is what things like the Moore College lectures and School of Theology are about.
My reading of John's piece is that he thinks more profound changes are required. There must be intense pressure, caught between those who want to maintain the status quo and those who wish for reform. Added to that is the need to balance the books in a really challenging environment.
Much of this stuff is not seen by the punters as under the 'Moore' brand.
For example Andrew Cameron (MTC ethics lecturer) does some great lay friendly stuff under the 'Social Issues Executive' brand... but I doubt people would link that back to Moore College.
But I would also add that MTC can't do it alone - professional communicators like myself and my brothers at Matthias Media work hard to repackage and present lecturer's material in a way that can be digested.
I guess I'm interested in getting some facts on the table where possible.
The whole 'branding' thing is a really interesting issue. I wonder if Andrew is doing great work for the diocese and for all of us - whether it needs to be explicitly linked to Moore College so everyone makes the link? Is that really necessary?
Perhaps it is - and that would 'raise the popular profile' of the place - because whether we like it or not, profile - and what people think (whether it is right or not) carries a fair bit of weight.
But then again - maybe he should just get on and do it and those who need to know, know and others - well I guess it doesn't matter. Do we really want potential students to be choosing which college they go to by 'popular column inches'? Surely we want to encourage a little more discernment than that.
Its a tricky question.
Surely we want to encourage a little more discernment than that.
But is there a way of doing this? In fact, this sort of "encouragement" is really just another piece of marketing, when you think about it.
less brands = cheaper marketing.
Which in the current cost cutting era should be attractive given we are all on the same 'team'.
I trust this doesn't sound crass - but I would have thought that internationally the "Moore' brand is the diocese's premium product. There are efficiency savings in packaging as much quality material as possible under that label.
One (relatively) simple suggestion - collate everything online written by Moore College lectures into a single RSS feed and publicise it on the website.
Growing an online presence for Moore has got to be an important part of the way forward.
BenB mentioned on his blog that in the live address, John indicated that beefing up the online presence was a priority - a greater priority than the building project even. Good thinking to my mind.
You said:
‘but I can't agree at all with this kind of 'Moore College needs to engage with the ordinary people - not be stuck in academic-ness' line’.
However, I said the college
‘can miss the mark for 'ordinary' people with 'academic-ness' in some of its public exposure formally and informally)’.
I don’t wish to give public examples but please remember Alexander (who I do not know) and I were wanting people to learn from this college. We are onside but concerned that SOME general public exposure was alienating for a wide audience in regard to some of its exposure.
The things you listed as examples, I would simply ask ‘Has the intended audience been able to understand what has been said in all those instances? That is all.
I think it is an important question any educational institution should be willing to ask. Is my audience understanding?
Regards Di
Compare the SMBC home page with the Moore home page and notice the differences. Quite substantial from a marketing perspective methinks - especially the "latest news and events" on the SMBC site which has lots of stuff which people can use and come to.
Builds better bridges into the Christian community amongst those not considering full-time ministry so that when they do consider full-time ministry the case of which college to attend is already closed.
I was told Moore only allowed full time students, a decision based on theological and pastoral issues. Now, with a changing financial situation and declining enrolments, they're considering a change... Too late for me.