The Archbishop of Sydney announced yesterday that Moore College Principal, Dr John Woodhouse, will be retiring early 2013.

During his time as Principal, Dr Woodhouse has had an enormous impact for the gospel through his teaching, writing and steering Moore College through a period of dramatic growth, change and many challenges. He is deeply loved and respected by students, staff, faculty and the wider Christian community who hold him in high esteem for his knowledge and love of the scriptures, his godly leadership and his patient support for those in his care.

We are grateful to John for his faithful service to Moore College and wish him and Moya every blessing for the future as they continue to explore ways to serve the Lord in the years after Moore. We will have chances to celebrate and thank John for his work closer to his retirement.

Leave your comments or tributes for John on Facebook or email.

Dr Woodhouse would have reached retirement age at the start of 2014, but has told the Board that after careful deliberation, he believed the time had come for him to plan to step aside from the role.

“It has been nothing but a privilege to serve the College, first as lecturer and for the past ten years as principal” Dr Woodhouse says. “Exciting plans are in train and I am confident there are great days to come. There is nothing dramatic in this decision. It is simply my judgment about what is best for the College at this time.”

“Our staff and faculty are doing a wonderful job, and are more than able to respond to the needs of the years ahead. The body of students that the Lord sends us is, in my opinion, outstanding. I really am excited about the next few years of the College’s life.”

Dr Woodhouse indicated that he has several writing projects to complete, once he finishes his term as principal.

“A commentary on 2 Samuel awaits – and several others in that series. We will also be on the lookout for other ways in which we can serve the Lord in the coming years.” he says.

Archbishop Jensen described Dr Woodhouse as an “outstanding Christian leader and a fine principal of Moore College. He has guided the College through a period of dramatic growth and played an integral role in the fulfillment of our diocesan mission. I am very grateful to God for his personal qualities and godly leadership.”

Archbishop of Sydney Dr Peter Jensen
President, Moore Theological College Governing Board
on behalf of the Governing Board, May 16th, 2012

• See the Sydney Anglican’s story: here
• See the Archbishop’s media release: here

Different identities are marked in many ways, but I want to think about language as one of the main markers. In Israel, the road signs are in three kinds of alphabet, which reinforces the different identities: Hebrew letters for the Jews, Arabic for the Arabs (whether Muslim or Christian), Roman letters for tourists. At the Anglican cathedral in Jerusalem this Wednesday morning, I was one of three at the early communion service. The other two were Arabic speakers – if I hadn’t been there, I wondered if they would have done the service in Arabic, or would they have followed the English service, because of the identity of St George’s Cathedral with its historic link to the English missionary effort?

I am interested in cross-cultural communication, so I face a dilemma here: I can’t always tell what background people come from by looking at them, so I don’t know whether to try to greet them in Hebrew (as Jews), or Arabic, or something else.

This obviously rich linguistic environment can help us think about the ways that language and identity so often go together, with important implications for ministry and mission, whether close to home or further away. Let me explore two statements and then tease out some problems and solutions.

Statement 1: The words we use reflect our identity

For people in a single-language environment – for example, many Anglo-Australians such as me, we take for granted that words communicate meaning. I want to say something, the words come out, people hear them and understand what I say. It’s that easy. But actually it’s not that easy. Even among English-speaking Australians there are all kinds of subgroups, with their own special varieties of language. Some of my children simply say ‘lol’ now when they hear something funny –  a new word that is more likely to be understood by the younger than the older. Even in my own language there are words and accents that will give clues as to where somebody comes from geographically, economically, spiritually, educationally, ethnically and socially. Whether we know it or not, our words reflect our identity – our words are giving out a message about who we are as well as the message that is contained in their meaning. In a multi-language environment like Sydney, this is true at an obvious level – a Cantonese speaker is likely to come from a Hong Kong family, a Greek speaker is likely to have a Greek heritage. But it is also demonstrated in other ways. Suburbs like Lakemba, Cabramatta and Fairfield are full of shop signs in languages other than English – this is not just so that potential customers can read a message, it is a way of saying this community is proud of a particular set of ethnic heritages. If we are speaking with Muslims who say ‘peace be upon him’ at every mention of Muhammad, we are hearing something of their identity as a diligent, practising Muslim. If we speak with Christians who carefully avoid using masculine pronouns for God (the use of the word ‘Godself’ is an example), we are hearing something of a theological identity. It is easy to notice this in others, but it is true of us too.

Statement 2: The words we use shape and strengthen our identity

Because words reflect and express our identity, they also have the ability to shape and strengthen our identity. In the communities I live in, the fact that I speak like those around me reinforces my sense of belonging to them. If I feel a bit on the outside, I might well use ‘identity-marking’ words more, so that I have a sense of fitting in better. An example that seems very obvious in some social and age groups is the use of swearwords, but it is also obvious in the use of theological jargon in a place like Moore College and perhaps in our churches. Of course there is a place for jargon – it saves time, and communicates with precision. But because jargon also expresses identity, it has a way of becoming a tribal marker. If I get the formula right, I belong; if I don’t, maybe I’m an outsider. For example, you may have noticed how there are different ways of praying – if you haven’t, I’m sorry for drawing it to your attention! We are likely to pray in a similar way to those we pray with most frequently, or those whose identity we value most – whether this means sounding more formal, more conversational, more doctrinally precise, more fluent, or more emotionally involved. And the way I speak or pray inevitably shapes my identity as well as reflecting it. If I am with ‘emotional’ pray-ers, I am likely to pray like them, and this will over time have an effect on my spiritual life and identity. If I am with ‘doctrinal’ pray-ers, my spiritual identity is likely being shaped. Again, it is easy to notice this in others (especially when we feel we don’t belong) and harder to see it in ourselves.

Problems and solutions

The problem is that meaning and identity can get mixed up, in various ways. Here are some examples.

1. We think we are communicating meaning, when we might in fact be communicating identity. This is particularly a risk in the interaction between Christians and others. When a lot of our time is spent within the Christian community, or when we talk about Christian things with fellow-believers rather than non-believers, we easily get used to what we sound like and it just sounds normal. To us, the words we say mean what we know they mean. But for others, the words we use may be giving a very different signal. It may be that our words (especially jargon words) press buttons for people in such a way that they don’t hear our meaning it all – a wall goes up instantly and blocks the meaning. In a post-Christian environment, this might occur when even the most innocuous Christian word is used. We may think people are rejecting our message, when actually they haven’t really even heard it. This seems so noticeable in feedback through the blogosphere and other parts of cyberspace. We might blame people for ‘not listening’ but I think we must work harder to find ways of bypassing the ‘identity’ markers. 

2. People use ‘identity’ words but bypass their meaning. This is particularly a risk within the growing Christian community. I recall hearing many Rembarrnga speakers in the Northern Territory praying prayers in their own language, except that they were sprinkled with English words like ‘blessing’ and ‘guiding’. These words were Christian ‘identity markers’ – they were used by Christians from other language groups when praying. But the fact that they were not Rembarrnga words suggested to me that their meaning was not clear. I ask myself what exactly I mean by words like ‘bless’ or ‘sin’ or ‘save’ or ‘Lord’ because the risk in our community is that the meaning gradually gets less clear. If ‘insiders’ keep using the words but never unpack their meaning, those who are becoming ‘insiders’ can happily absorb them as identity badges without really understanding their full meaning, or even having a completely distorted meaning. The solution isn’t to laboriously unpack every word each time it is used. But we must keep thinking about how we express ourselves, particularly in the area of Christian truth.

3. We listen for meaning and fail to notice identity. The risk here is that we are skating across the surface of a communication, rather than heeding what is going on underneath. In some sense, of course, it is appropriate to take people’s words at face value – but we must be aware that this is more likely to result in straightforward communication when the people are most like us. It will always be more helpful to listen below the surface and think about whether there are identity issues being expressed as well, and to pick up on them when there are. People might be wanting to express that they belong with us, or that they don’t want to belong with us – and this can occur between Christian groups as well as between Christians and others.

Of course we want to communicate meaning – particularly the truth about Jesus, about our life with God, about the riches in the Bible – with Christians and with others. It is not that identity ‘gets in the way’; rather identity is part of the communication process. The more we are aware of it, the more effective our communication of God’s truth is likely to be.

Holy Trinity Glen Innes welcomes its Moore Mission team to town

Moore College missions 2012 (held April 29 to May 6) have successfully concluded for another year. It has been a wonderful display of God’s people evangelising. Our teams made up of students and faculty partnering with local churches have had a wonderful time in spreading Jesus’ good news. Excitingly there are stories of people being won for Christ.

Moore College teams participated in 13 missions – 10 of them within the Diocese of Sydney: Asquith, North Rocks, Inner West, Quakers Hill, Eastwood, Greenacre, Gymea, Miranda, Willoughby and Forestville, plus two missions in regional NSW – South Tamworth and Glen Innes, and one to PNG.

Jo Mason (fourth year student) was on the Moore mission with Gymea Anglican church. Here’s what she said of her mission experience:

“We were so very warmly welcomed at Gymea. People weren’t just friendly, they were excited to have us with them because of their prayerful anticipation of mission.  Every year billeting is a profound reminder of God’s extraordinary hospitality, as complete strangers offer you a place in their family for a week, complete with food, shelter, a bed, and little that you can offer in return. This year was not different. I teared up when I had to farewell mine.”

“The mission itself was based around the idea “If you could ask God one question, what would it be?” This provided a helpful way into conversations with people on the street, at front doors, over meals and in bible study groups. Answering (a lot of) questions is a challenge, not just to give good answers, but to answer in a way that moves people towards, or enriches their relationship with God.” 

“Somewhat spontaneously a couple of guys from the team set up a question board on the pavement outside of the church. Such a simple idea provided some of our most profound opportunities to connect with people, including one guy giving his life to Jesus then and there on the footpath.’” Find out more about this in Jo’s blog post. 

“Church members joined us in doorknocking, event organising, and in inviting friends to everything. Such partnership is key in connecting people with the church community that will be there long after we’ve left. We were able to hand out lots of gospels and details about church-related things people could get involved with. Moreover, I was reminded again of how important, and exciting prayer can be. We prayed together at least twice a day, and saw God at work repeatedly in and through and in spite of us”, Jo said.

Local church leaders have been positive and encouraged by this gospel partnership. “If all the students at Moore College have the same spiritual character and are of the same calibre [as the students on our team], then God is doing is something amazing at Moore College.” said Graham Wintle, Rector of St Stephen’s, Willoughby about the Moore mission team.

There is still an opportunity to pray for post mission follow up by the local churches and the debriefing of the mission teams as they come back after 8 days of intense work. For more info and to find out more about what other teams got up to visit: http://mission.moore.edu.au.

To get a taste for what mission was like watch one of Moore’s female students in action delivering a gospel talk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SWTYiXNMVVQ.

One of the other exciting elements of Moore missions 2012 was the digital mission aspect. The Moore missions blog has generated a large amount of great content, it was a good talking point for the church and the broader Christian community. With the prayer tweets, blog and Facebook content dedicated to the missions we have engaged with a much wider street team who have supported the teams in interest, prayer, encouragement and support.

Mark Fairfull

By Con Campbell

Moore College is about to go on mission, in partnership with churches throughout Sydney, northern New South Wales, and Papua New Guinea. Students and faculty are hard at work on their sermons and talks for mission, so I thought I’d repost a series about writing evangelistic talks (lightly revised; original posts are at readbetterpreachbetter.wordpress.com). I’m no expert on the subject, and much of what I’ll say is not original. In fact, lots of it probably comes from John Chapman, who is a national treasure, and was one of my trainers when I was a student minister with Evangelism Ministries. I’ve lost track of which ideas belong to him and which are mine. So with that caveat in place, here’s my (or his?) first thought.

By Greg Anderson

In the Moore College course about Buddhism and Islam one of our topics is folk religion. We include this topic because most Buddhists and Muslims don’t practice their religion according to the textbook accounts, but are strongly influenced by the indigenous spiritual traditions of their areas. There are visits to traditional healers, sacrifices, attempts to ward off evil forces through various kinds of magic, fear of local spirits, attention to omens – all characteristic of folk religion. Folk religion revolves around trying to deal with the unseen spiritual world and spiritual forces in a way that will reduce their harm and harness their power. People in the West tend to discount the existence of spirits and so folk religion appears to them as a host of superstitions. Folk religion is often closely attached to a particular tribe or region, and any one tribe’s sets of practices will differ from others. So folk religion forms part of a group’s identity.

One of the benefits of thinking about how other people act is that this provides us the opportunity of thinking about our own beliefs and actions compared with others. It is easy to point the finger at someone else, but we must acknowledge that we may be doing similar things ourselves (as Paul says in Romans 2). Are there ways that Christians – even ‘Christians like us’ act in ways that are more folk religion than biblical Christianity?

When I was a theological student, our College principal strongly made the point many times that there are no ‘magical’ spiritual techniques that fast-track Christian development. There are many good things that we can do that will help our growth – reading the Bible, praying, meeting with other Christians, living lives of obedience before God, choosing to follow Jesus whether this feels comfortable or uncomfortable. Danger occurs when we start to treat any of these good things as though they are ‘magic’ — what my ‘tribe’ does to guarantee spiritual results. Do we imagine that if we pray longer or with more people that God will be more likely to hear our prayers? Do we imagine that reading the Bible with others will automatically produce Christian maturity? Do we imagine that if we preach a certain way, the church will automatically grow?

When we have successful programs it is easy for us to start thinking that the program is what has achieved results, rather than God in his kindness.

Few of us would accept that we have fallen into that trap. But sometimes our attitudes belie our words, and sometimes our words betray us as thinking ‘magically’. We need to examine our thinking, and check that we are not only entrusting ourselves to our good God and using the helps he has given us without supersition, but also that we are making an explicit mention of these dangers so that others can avoid them.

Greg Anderson is Head of the Missions Department at Moore College.

The insights of Graeme Goldsworthy and Donald Robinson into how the whole bible fits together have informed every aspect of Moore College’s curriculum. In his new book Graeme expands his understanding of biblical theology, and defends and refines the rationale for his approach.

‘For many years I have admired the good things coming out of Moore Theological College … In an age of increasing specialization and fragmentation where even biblical things come apart, Goldsworthy’s approach to the unity of Scripture is an important countercultural blast.’ Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Wheaton College Graduate School

The Principal Dr John Woodhouse
would like to invite you to an evening to
celebrate the ministry of Graeme Goldsworthy
and launch his new book.

Wednesday 23 May 2012

Refreshments at 7.00 pm for a 7.30 pm launch
in the Moore College Dining Room
2-16 Carillon Avenue, Newtown

The book will be available for purchase and signing.
Bookings are essential for this event by Wednesday 16 May 2012
Please advise dietary or special requirements when booking.
Email: rsvp@moore.edu.au

Considering studying theology and the bible? Each year the College holds Open Weeks and Open Nights for you to come and meet current students and find out for yourself what Moore is all about… Moore College would like to invite you to our 2012 Open events to provide you with an opportunity to find out more about studying at Moore.

Open Nights 2012:
Monday 28 May 2012 & Monday 27 August
7.45 pm – 9.15 pm
Broughton Knox Centre, 15 King Street Newtown
Come in, check out the College and have your questions answered.
For more information please email openevents@moore.edu.au.

Open Weeks 2012:
Monday 21 May – Friday 25 May
Monday 27 August – Friday 31 August
Come and visit our Newtown campus, sample a lecture and meet Faculty and students.
For more information or to arrange your visit, please email openevents@moore.edu.au.

Open Day 2012:
Saturday 29 September
9.30 am – 2.30 pm
1 King Street Newtown
A BBQ lunch will be provided at 12.00 pm.

For more information on what will be happening on the day, please email openevents@moore.edu.au.

The day will include a sample lecture from a member of Faculty, a campus tour and plenty of opportunities for questions. You are welcome to drop in at any point; we hope you’ll be able to stay for either the morning or afternoon streams.

We hope to see you at one of Moore’s Open events 2012!

By George Athas

Did you mean to die like that — was that a mistake?

Or did you know your messy death would be a record breaker?

There are a numbers of ways we could answer the question ‘Why did Jesus die?’ On the historical level, we can say that Jesus was caught between the crunching gears of apocalyptic messianic expectation, Jewish temple politics, and Roman imperial intrigue. On the theological level, there is so much more to say.

On the Sunday before his death, Jesus entered Jerusalem riding a donkey to the frenzied cheers of his followers. It was a provocative messianic stunt, aimed at fulfilling the image of the returning Davidic King in Zechariah 9.9. And his followers were not blind to its significance. Their cry of ‘Hosanna!’ was a slogan meaning ‘To the rescue!’ Here was the Davidic messiah coming to his royal capital to overthrow the current order, free his people, and establish the new Kingdom of God. The following day, in a brash act prefiguring the end of the old order, Jesus marched into the temple complex and overturned the tables of the moneychangers and opened the pens holding sacrificial animals for sale. A small riot seems to have ensued. By doing this symbolic act, Jesus was clearly stating that he believed the temple and the authorities that ran itwere no longer in favour with God. Time was rapidly running out — the time of judgement and the dawn of a new era were now imminent. Jesus was, in other words, playing the part of an apocalyptic prophet.

For the remainder of the week, the temple authorities worked to arrest Jesus. Aftertrying unsuccessfully to discredit him publicly, and fearing the incendiaryriot that a public arrest would probably spark, they managed to arrest him on the sly by bribing Judas Iscariot, a member of Jesus’ inner circle. A summary Jewish trial ensued. In fact, it was probably an illegal trial, since it was held during the midnight hours within the house of the High Priest, Caiaphas. It seems that those present tried to pin the charge of treason on Jesus by implicating him for threats against the temple, the institution that stood at the heart of Jewish identity and piety. This would be akin to charging someone today with a plot to blow up the White House. Given events earlier in the week, one would have thought it would be easy to implicate Jesus. However, the Gospels tell us that the witnesses brought forward could not agree, and therefore Jesus could not definitively be found guilty. However, the High Priest, Caiaphas,used another strategy. He asked Jesus if he was the Son of God. In asking this, Caiaphas was probably not asking Jesus whether he believed he was the second person on the Trinity. Rather, he was asking Jesus whether he believed himself to be the messiah — the son of David who was to sit eternally on the throne of Israel, for the son of David in the Hebrew Bible was also seen as the ‘son of God’ (see 2 Samuel 7.14). Jesus’ response implied that he did believe this. But even more than this, Jesus appealed to the image of the Son of Man in Daniel 7 — an apocalyptic image of God’s chosen one who would bring about the end of the world order and establish God’s eternal kingdom. In the eyes of the authorities, this was an admission of revolutionary intent. Jesus was foundguilty.

Since the Jewish authorities at this time were unable to exact the death penalty (it had been revoked by Rome a few decades earlier), Jesus was hurried off to the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate. Politically, Pilate was fighting battles on two fronts. On the one hand, Pilate was probably a protégé of Aelius Sejanus, who had been running the Roman Empire for a few years while the emperor, Tiberius Caesar, enjoyed a leisurely lifestyle on the Italian isle of Capri. However, in October, AD 31, Sejanus was executed for conspiracy against the emperor. Anyone connected to him was now also under suspicion. Pilate, therefore, would have had to watch his steps very closely to demonstrate unambiguously that he was loyal to Tiberius Caesar. On the other hand, though, Pilate had to maintain face and an air of authority over those he governed. In the years before Sejanus’ ignominious death, Pilate had thrown his weight around in various displays of power. Amongst those he needed to keep in check were the Jewish temple authorities. One of the ways he had managed to do so was to plunder the temple’s treasury for public works, and to keep the High Priest’s ceremonial garments under lock and key in the Antonia Fortress. These measures were belittling to the Jewish temple authorities and told them in no uncertain terms who was boss.

So, on the morning of Friday, April 3^rd, AD 33, the Jewish authorities brought Jesus to Pilate to seek the death penalty for him. Normally, it would appear that the Jewish authorities were in the position of grovelling subordinates, and thus for Pilate to agree to the death penalty would simply be a show of his own authority. However, Pilate also had to contend for his own reputation now that he was in the spotlight after Sejanus’ death. He could not afford to show any weakness before those he governed, and acquiescing to their request could now be interpreted as just such a weakness. And yet, he could not be seen to be letting a potential revolutionary go free either. That would endanger his standing with the emperor. Accordingly, Pilate attempted to hand the decision over to someone else — to Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, who was in Jerusalem at the time. However, the move backfired. Jesus was returned to Pilate, who now had to make a decision. Not wishing to imply that he was vulnerable or susceptible to weakness, Pilate himself questioned Jesus, flogged him in a display of Rome’s discipline, and was then on the verge of releasing him. By thus overriding the request of the Jewish leaders for the death penalty, Pilate was stamping his authority over them. However, Caiaphas and his comrades were not stupid. They now held the trump card. John’s Gospel tells us that the Jewish authorities said to Pilate, “If you release this man, you are not Caesar’s friend” (19.12). They were implying that if he were to release Jesus, Pilate would be letting an insurrectionist go free to destabilise one of the imperial provinces that Tiberius governed directly (as opposed to consular provinces, which were governed via the Roman Senate). This would implicate Pilate as a traitor to the emperor. To put it another way, the Jewish authorities were asking Pilate, “Whose skin do you want to save: this nuisance from Nazareth’s, or your own?” Checkmate!

On the surface of things, it seems that Jesus was in the wrong place at the wrong time — a victim of circumstance, crushed by political machinations that were far bigger than he could humanly control. Some have pointed to the apocalyptic outlookthat Jesus had, in wanting to draw the old order to a close and establish a new order, concluding that it was idealistic, unreal, and fraught with danger — that his beliefs and motivations just got him in too deep. Indeed, one can understand why most of his followers abandoned him and became so disillusioned by his death. He was an apparent failure. All the expectation surrounding him had come to nought, and like so many others before him, he fell foul of theauthorities and lost his life because of it.

But history also tells us something else. It tell us that not long after these events, Jesus’ followers reassembled and began boldly proclaiming that on the Sunday after his death Jesus had emerged from his tomb alive again. And despite attempts to silence them by the very same authorities who had Jesus arrested and killed, they continued to proclaim the resurrection of their master. He had not been a failure. He had been a fulfiller. He had indeed brought the old era to an end and inaugurated a new one, but had done so in a way that no one had anticipated: through his death. The Acts of the Apostles tell us that on one occasion, after being reprimanded by the Jewish authorities, Jesus’ followers prayed to God affirming, “In this city, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, conspired against your holy servant,Jesus, whom you anointed, doing what your hand and your plan had predestined to take place” (Acts 4.27–28). This had been no accident of history. In fact, this was what God had been mobilising all of history towards: the death and resurrection of Jesus. It was a moment of supreme fulfilment. This was the central moment of human history that held significance for every man, woman, and child who has ever lived or ever will live. The final bell on the old order, characterised by sin, death, hate, hostility, and human failure, had sounded. The new era offorgiveness, life, love, peace, and reconciliation was now dawning. Jesus had not only met expectations, he far exceeded them.

So why did Jesus die? There are so many things we could say to unpack the significance of Jesus’ death and his resurrection. The Apostle Paul puts it succinctly well, though, in Romans 4.25: “He was handed over for our transgressions, and raised for the sake of our justification.” And our response? Paul again captures it well in Galatians 2.20: “The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”

George Athas is Director of Postgraduate Studies at Moore College and lectures in Hebrew, Old Testament, and Early Church History.