Connect 09 starts with good works

I must say that I heartily agree with Sandy Grant’s comments about the potential pitfalls of Connect 09 (SC, Feb).
For this initiative to be more than a simple conscience-cleaning exercise for Sydney Anglicans we need to address some significant issues.
From my perspective the standout issue isn’t handing out the word of God (as important as that is) but more that as a church we must strategise how to take a prior step – namely, to prepare the way so that the community is ready and able to hear that word we so desperately want to put in their hands.
Without any existing profile of positive contribution to the good of the community we simply stand to reinforce their irrelevant and bothersome preconception of the church.
In an attempt to begin to break down these barriers within our own community Figtree Anglican has been working on a number of fronts.
By way of example, two years ago we held a car boot sale from which the entire proceeds went to a relatively disadvantaged local primary school in which we were already doing Scripture teaching.
This was then followed by the offer to sponsor any interested needy kids from the school into our kids camp. In the end, a significant number gave their lives to Jesus and we have now been invited to participate in their school fete.
It’s this hand-in-glove approach to combining blessing and preaching which I believe is breaking down the old preconceptions and preparing kids and their families to hear the good news.
Stuart Starr
Figtree, NSW

We deserve Govt generosity

While I do agree that we must be godly in how we use clergy tax benefits, I could hardly agree with John Sandeman that the church is getting a ‘free lunch’ (SC, Feb). I would like to turn the idea of unbelievers subsidising the church on its head. My local parish is very involved in Scripture teaching, P&C and many other facets of the local school and community. Governments understand the work local churches put into the community and a few tax breaks hardly cost society in lieu of having to put more government resources into the community.
Mark Penn
Naremburn, NSW

John Sandeman raises some excellent points in his article “No free lunch for church” (SC, Feb).
Whilst I agree with his concern that we clergy do not abuse the benefits provided to us, there are answers to his questions.
John is right that the main benefits we receive are housing-related. Uniquely, a minister’s home is also our place of work. Not just our study but also all the living areas which regularly see church members and others attending for various events and activities. In any other profession the taxman would consider the associated costs a reasonable allowance.
FEE-HELP is another question. The matter was raised with government prior to the scheme being set up and they acknowledged ministers may not be able to repay the loans. Indeed, the intention was to subsidise various second-career options, be they low or high-paying.
All this is not to dismiss John’s valid questions. Nevertheless I think a more useful response is not so much to question the benefits themselves but the way we use them. For example, how many of us really open up our homes and share our lives (such a rare thing in our culture)?
I’m sure your readers would be pleased to encourage us to try to get this right.
David Ould
Neutral Bay, NSW

Sandeman’s claim is that unbelievers are unfairly having to contribute to clergy costs through foregone taxes. Unfortunately, we don’t choose where our taxes go. If I have to contribute to private schools (as an example), then private school defenders can contribute to the community benefits of my rector, by reducing the cost load on my parish.
Darryl Sessions
Turramurra South, NSW

John Sandeman – salary sacrifice your lunch, buy two sandwiches for the price of one, go give the extra one to the homeless guy, then eat lunch together and tell him you did this because Jesus is Lord.
Let’s not be so worried about “what looks bad” that it stops us from acting in a way that best serves Jesus.
As a minister who has benefited from FEE-HELP, I say, make the most of all the government provides so we can do good.
Tony Wright
St Alban’s, Lindfield

Mixed response to Lambeth decision

The Archbishop of Sydney wishes to protest against the recent divisive acts of certain North American dioceses. I respect and to some degree support this wish. But how ought this be done?
The decision not to attend Lambeth this year is surely an ill-advised step. It does nothing to censure the offending dioceses or prompt their repentance; it does nothing to safeguard the spiritual health of local Anglicans. The issues at stake are indeed serious; they require serious words to be spoken. But the words that make a difference will be the ones spoken by those who turn up. 
Dr Matheson Russell
Auckland, NZ

Having just spent a month in the UK, I appreciate the principled stand our bishops have taken by declining the invitation to the Lambeth Conference.
We visited clergy across the breadth of the country and almost without exception, they were dismayed by their bishops, who seemed to value all things ‘C of E’ (Anglican) before they valued faithfulness to Christ.
No doubt our bishops’ decision was difficult. Evidently it has not been universally welcomed. But it was a necessary decision that put faithfulness to Christ above all else.
Claire Smith
Chatswood, NSW

Gambling or grog?

While I commend Souths for their stand of trialling the removal of pokie machines (SC, Feb), there is a bigger problem that underpins the gambling addiction and many other addictions: alcohol.
As a youth worker for the last 17 years in the inner city, I’ve seen enough damage done to families and individuals by the social acceptance of alcohol and what it can lead to.
I hope Souths go a step further in the future. After the success of pokie removal why not tackle the sale of alcohol to those who are especially young and the vulnerable? 
Angelo Porcu
St Peters, NSW