Geraldine Doogue: Why do you think really at base there is still so much ambivalence among some people about the notion of a woman playing a headship role in the church?

Kay Goldsworthy: Well that’s a mystery to me. Just is a mystery to me. And I couldn’t really say why.

From here.

Thoughts?

Here’s David Ould’s response.

On the program, it was said that there would be 18 female bishops at Lambeth [I think]. They thought two would come from Australia, and sixteen from the US, if my memory serves me correctly.

But no mention of any Pommie female bishops. So, is Australia ahead of GB in this?

The pomp and ceremony involved in the consecration service seems far removed from the simplicity of the NT, to this little black duck. It looked more like the coronation of the queen.

The ABC’s Religion Report has two interviews on the issue - unsurprisingly, both from the pro-point of view. Of the two, Barbara Darling’s (the woman who’s being made a bishop in Melbourne) is the more reasonable:
Canon Darling on Australia’s first female Anglican bishops

Meanwhile the interview with Patricia Brennan (former head of MOW) can best be described as an own-goal for the MOW movement in Sydney.
Dr Patricia Brennan on Australia’s first femal Anglican bishops

If MOW wants to persuade us that the ordination of women as presbyters is Biblical, then having her as a spokesperson will do the opposite.

I love her reasoning. Apparently the Archbishop is against women doctors (I’m not certain why he lets such dangerous females into Moore College then) and Sydney is becoming more irrelevant. Dear Patricia, I’d suggest that you need to learn how to count. Sydney has somewhere between a third and a half of all practicing Anglicans in Australia and a theological college roughly twice the size of any other Anglican seminary in Australia. Moreover, the number of both clergy and lay people in Sydney are growing, whilst the numbers in liberal dioceses are heading south.This means that our numbers on General Synod will increase, and hence our relevancy to the Anglican Church in Australia as a whole.

I heard some time back that many Sydney Anglican churches have more women in ministry than many of the churches which claim to be egalitarian. While they are not senior ministers, according to the report I read, they have many more serving in various capacities than the churches where a woman may be the leader.

Yes the C of E does not have women bishops at this point in time.

Yes it is said that Sydney has more women ministers than any other Dicoese, but then again we have far more ministers than anywhere else as well. I’m not sure how it works out in % terms.

I found the whole interview somewhat frustrating. Some of the voiceovers are not included in the transcript and one such regarding the ordination of women in Melbourne in 1986 contained a female voice saying “this was when we knew that God was good”. I found this comment offensive. I understood God to be good on the day I understood the significance of the cross and I therefore found that the comment belittled God’s goodness and grace.

I was also surprised by the discussion regarding Kay Goldsworthy meeting and marrying her husband – A man who is not religious but would “allow faith” whatever that means. It felt very much like the ‘Vicar of Dibley’ who met and married a man who was not a believer. I felt that by Geraldine Doogue asking whether Kay Goldsworthy was a “wowserish type of person” was also therefore questioning her on her attitude to sex, especially before marriage.

On the whole I wondered what Kay Goldsworthy’s faith was in as I saw no love for Christ in this interview.

I found the following very noteworthy

Stephen Crittenden: And what about the work you’re going to take up as a bishop, because you’re not going to be working as a kind of an assistant bishop in the parishes, are you? You’re going to be working in a very particular area of diocesan ministry to family and women and children and young people.

Barbara Darling: That’s part of the area. There’s four main areas, to my understanding, and this still needs to be worked through in detail. But one of them is looking with health and welfare chaplains in schools, school chaplaincy. Another one is with youth and children’s ministry, and the fourth area is multicultural ministry. These are all areas that are not directly parish but it will involve parishes. So I don’t have a geographical territory, but I will be able and welcome to go into the different regions of our diocese.

It appears she is not going to have ‘oversight’ over any congregations/parishes.

I wonder if this makes some of the comments made in the blogosphere about how divisive this move will be in Melb completely off the mark?

Is it just the liberal faction of the Anglican Church that approves of female ministers or bishops? Does the Anglo/Catholic faction also have them?

I also detest hearing Anglican ministers referring to themselves a priests. Not very scriptual, in understanding the role of the leader of the church, at a locality. (priesthood was made unnecessary by Jesus death and resurrection - Jesus made the one final sacrifice needed)

And I don’t think a woman should be a minister. Generally women look for men to lead - eg, to ask them for something etc. (Most dates with women, require the lead by the man for example.)

A woman minister, by the nature of her sex, may be tempted and led by men in the congregation, possibly in the wrong direction? Leadership of men, by women, is contrary to the roles God has give the sexes.

It is good to see that evangelistic churches resist this trend. Call me conservative.

Ken,
Anglo-Catholic churches also resist woman bishops and presbyters, but for different reasons.  An example in Australia would be most churches within the diocese of Ballarat.

Ken

Ken Austin - 30 May 2008 02:40 PM

I also detest hearing Anglican ministers referring to themselves a priests. Not very scriptural, in understanding the role of the leader of the church . . .

To be strictly accurate, the word ‘priest’ is quite scriptural.  It is a contraction of ‘presbyter’ which means elder, and therefore quite an appropriate term for an Anglican minister.  The confusion arises because it was also used to translate the Greek hiereus, which means a sacrificing priest, and so has come to also have that meaning in English.  It’s the nature of language that one word can have a range of meanings.  Some have sought to resolve this ambiguity by reviving ‘presbyter’, but those who are still comfortable with the ambiguity of ‘priest’ are not being unbiblical.

A woman minister, by the nature of her sex, may be tempted and led by men in the congregation, possibly in the wrong direction?

While I agree with your conclusions about the distinct roles of men and women in the church, I don’t think much of this argument.  Male ministers have a long history of being tempted by women in their congregations and indeed leading women from their congregations into temptation!  And I’m not just talking about ancient history - there are plenty of recent examples.

So if we’re going to argue for a distinction between the roles and responsibilities of men and women in churches, let’s stick to what the Bible actually says, and not start second-guessing God.

Bob

Ken,
Anglo-Catholic churches also resist woman bishops and presbyters, but for different reasons.  An example in Australia would be most churches within the diocese of Ballarat.

Bendigo & Wangaratta also have arguments against women priests and bishops. (I was one of those who was “priested” not “presbytered” in the Diocese of Sydney… I prefer being called Rob, I have never sacrificed the mass, my children call me dad, I love the sacrifice of praise, the fruit of lips that acknowledge His name… I always thought priest was a latin form of Presbyter… I have been known to be wrong about Latin many times)

By the way, pray for the Diocese of Wangaratta as they seek a new bishop soon, as Bishop David Farrar is leaving to take up a parish in the UK.

Wangaratta now will ordain women as priests. The bishop signed off the paperwork/legislation/insert-correct-legal-term-here last year.

Can’t help but reply with a slight correction to this by Bob - which is nearly right:

To be strictly accurate, the word ‘priest’ is quite scriptural.  It is a contraction of ‘presbyter’ which means elder, and therefore quite an appropriate term for an Anglican minister.  The confusion arises because it was also used to translate the Greek hiereus, which means a sacrificing priest, and so has come to also have that meaning in English.  It’s the nature of language that one word can have a range of meanings.  Some have sought to resolve this ambiguity by reviving ‘presbyter’, but those who are still comfortable with the ambiguity of ‘priest’ are not being unbiblical.

Let me give a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia (online) to clarify the etymology:

This word (etymologically “elder”, from presbyteros, presbyter) has taken the meaning of “sacerdos”, from which no substantive has been formed in various modern languages (English, French, German).

Sacerdos is of course the Latin term for sacrificing priest - a term which equates to hierus in Greek.

The problem is that the word ‘Priest’ used to have the meaning of ‘elder’ over 500 years ago, but now has taken on the meaning of ‘sacerdos’ (not least because there is no other English word for ‘sacrificing priest’).

On the basis that we can’t fight this understanding of the term and that Cranmer’s Prayer Book ordination describes the ministry to which a person is ordained as the ministry of preacher/elder/overseer/pastor (rather than sacerdotal priest) I think we ought to at least use the term ‘presbyter’ when talking technically about the second order of ministry.

Jeremy Halcrow - 30 May 2008 02:35 PM

It appears she is not going to have ‘oversight’ over any congregations/parishes.

I wonder if this makes some of the comments made in the blogosphere about how divisive this move will be in Melb completely off the mark?

I’m sure Melburnian Anglican evangelicals will find a way to accommodate the latest. It’s part of the tragedy within the leadership of Anglican evangelicalism in Melbourne that some of them can, despite opposition, accommodate almost anything without significant protest—or even find themselves arguing that this decision is biblical, and ought to be supported by those who understand their Bibles rightly.

The problem with what you’re outlining, Jeremy, is that any decision for someone like Barbara Darling not to be involved in oversight of congregations is purely administrative in nature.

What I mean is, if Archbishop Freier decides (for example, and as lies within his power to do) to declare that Barbara is going to run a parish in the Docklands (temporarily, while we wait for the vicar who may never come), then she is, and that’s that.

All of which is to say, give these friends your support.

I am puzzled about the reasoning behind female assistant bishops.

As far as I understood from Glenn Davies’ report on the Tribunal’s decision, the way was open for A Diocesan bishop to be female, but the relevant ordinance for assistant bishops had not been changed into gender neutral terms.

That is, did I miss something where it explained how the consecration of female assistant bishops was constitutional?

The problem with what you’re outlining, Jeremy....

Didn’t think I outlined anything. I was just wondering if this was a move to protect the consciences of objecting conservative evangelicals by not giving her pastoral oversight of a region of parishes like the other bishops in Melbourne (as in Sydney).

Hence to avoid protests from those conservative evangelicals in Melb (who do exist, as I know them - some personally… and indeed sometimes some of them even post here)

I’m sure you’ll be praying for them Gordo, as well as the Presbyterians ;)