Dear All

In an attempt to try and keep this thread on its original track I’ve started a separate thread on the terminolgy of priesthood.  Any takers?

Bob

Dear Ken,
I think it is too general, and written from one side of the discussion, and only fleetingly touches on variations within the Anglican church’s views.

[
greetings
thank you alan dungoy for your kind large words on my not beiing able
to understand the current discussion on female bishops ,priests etc.
it is always a nice experience on this forum to have people offer such
well placed & kind responses to postings.
and as i said i am certain that some good soul will point out to me verses
of scripture which support this article on appointments.
also my aplogies to rob denham on my misspelling of his baptismal name.
i am still at a loss why in the diocese of sydney especially, we seem to
be against the ordination of women to the priesthood & women bishops.

colin sutherland

greetings
in my old age & bad sight i posted as alan dungoy which should
be dungey ,,my most humble apologies.

colin sutherland

colin sutherland - 04 June 2008 01:56 PM

thank you alan . . . for your kind large words on my not beiing able to understand the current discussion on female bishops ,priests etc.
it is always a nice experience on this forum to have people offer such
well placed & kind responses to postings.

Dear Colin

I must admit that I cowered a little at the tone of Alan’s response to your previous posting.  In the same spirit, I think the sarcasm with which you responded, and the potential implication that this is typical behaviour on these forums were equally uncalled for.  Let’s all write with gentleness and respect (1 Pet 3:15).

Bob

In response to Robert Denman’s question

However, on the theme of the thread’s title, is anyone going to attempt to answer my question (in #14) about the Constitutional validity of female assistant bishops?

Sydney Diocese’s position is that women bishops (whether Diocesan or assistant) is unconstitutional. Am i right? The Appellate Tribunal ruled 4-3 otherwise. That ruling doesn’t change the above. You’d have to ask the Sydney bishops what agreement they came up with the other Dioceses at their meeting at Newcastle last month.

and

Clearly no one in Sydney is challenging the legality of assistant bishops after losing on diocesan bishops. I take it that’s a political decision.

In reality the answer is quite simple and has nothing to do with the protocols or any agreement made by the Bishops at their recent meeting in Newcastle.
It has to do with a legal obstacle to female Assistant Bishops in some Dioceses as identified in the Appellate Tribunal Decision which can be found at http://www.anglican.org.au/docs/ATWomenBishop270907.pdf (sorry I don’t know how to build in the link someone with more IT savvy than I may care to do that!)
The relevant section highlighting the problem is

Question 1: Is there anything in the Constitution which would now
prevent the consecration of a woman in priests’ orders as a bishop in
this Church in a diocese which by ordinance has adopted the Law of
the Church of England Clarification Canon 1992?

Answer: As regards diocesan bishops: No, provided that the
woman has been duly elected as the diocesan bishop and has had her
election duly confirmed in accordance with the criteria for canonical
fitness set out in s74(1) of the Constitution.

As regards assistant bishops: There is nothing in the Constitution itself
that would preclude the consecration of a woman appointed in
accordance with the law applicable in the diocese concerned.
However, such consecration could not take place in a diocese in which
the Assistant Bishops’ Canon 1966 is in force so long as it remains in
force in that diocese in its present form.

The reason for the difference is that with effect from 1995 there was a change made in the definition of Canonical fitness which removed any reference to gender, however that change was ruled not to apply retrospectively to the 1966 Assistant Bishops Canon. As I understand it Melbourne and Perth Dioceses after the Appellate Tribunal decision have acted to remove the impediment - I assume by repealing the 1966 Canon and establishing other means for the regulating of Assistant bishops.

It was quite clearly reported at the time of the Appellate Tribunal decision that there was a simple remedy (by way of Diocesan Synodical action) to the rather farcical situation of it being OK for a woman to be the chief bishop of a Diocese but not an assistant bishop.  I hope that helps to clarify the situation - it has nothing to do with “politics” as Jeremy has inferred but everything to do with the intricacies of church law!

Mark Short asks

Will deacons and priests ordained by female Bishops in Australia be recognised as such within Sydney Diocese?

A good question. I guess that will firstly depend on their gender - certainly if current practice continues any female priests so ordained will not be, just as those ordained by a male bishop are not. However I expect that female deacons and male deacons and priests will be recognised as such, though whether they will be licensed to work in Sydney may be problematic. I would most surprised if permission to exercise their ordained ministry on a temporary visiting basis was refused.

I would argue that Sydney needs to rethink its position on the issue of the recognition of female priests and now bishops. Sydney has consistently argued that those Diocese’s that support the full ministry of women need to make appropriate provision for those who in conscience cannot accept the ministry of women priests and bishops yet it continues to refuse to make the same provision for those parishes within this Diocese which seek to live out the clear witness of scripture as a whole that gender is not a determinant when it comes to ministry and leadership in the Church.  It would be good if Sydney showed the same flexibility and pastoral sensitivity for its minorities as it supports for minorities in other Dioceses and which the protocols suggest will be forthcoming.

Jeremy & Rob,

re the question of the legality of assistant bishops:
at the Nov 2007 Melbourne Anglican Synod leave was given
‘...to bring in a bill to exclude the Assistant Bishop’s Canon 1966 of the General Synod and for that purpose to repeal The Assistant Bishop’s Act 1967, to limit the application of the Canonical Fitness of Bishop Ordinance 1979 of the Provincial Synod of Victoria and to amend the Assistant Bishops Act 1985 ...’
The bill passed after debate on the following day, making it legal to have female assistant bishops in Melbourne Diocese.

I’ve asked for the Melbourne Diocesan guidelines which the Protocol on Women in the Episcopate recommends be put into place to cater for those unable to accept a female bishop, but it appears these have not been developed yet.

With appreciation for your prayers (including Gordon’s!),

Phil Gale

Phil Gale - 04 June 2008 03:34 PM

With appreciation for your prayers (including Gordon’s!),

Phil Gale

Will certainly pray Phil.

I know that a good many Melburnian evangelicals, including Anglicans, will be disturbed by this turn of events.

G’day,

Chris said:

I would argue that Sydney needs to rethink its position on the issue of the recognition of female priests and now bishops. Sydney has consistently argued that those Diocese’s that support the full ministry of women need to make appropriate provision for those who in conscience cannot accept the ministry of women priests and bishops yet it continues to refuse to make the same provision for those parishes within this Diocese which seek to live out the clear witness of scripture as a whole that gender is not a determinant when it comes to ministry and leadership in the Church.  It would be good if Sydney showed the same flexibility and pastoral sensitivity for its minorities as it supports for minorities in other Dioceses and which the protocols suggest will be forthcoming.

Chris, I think that you’re comparing apples with oranges here. You are saying that the person who can’t in good conscience accept a deviation from the normal (and in this case may I also say clearly biblical) practices of the church is in the same category as an innovator in the minority. They are 2 very different categories of people.

Yours in Christ,
Mark

Mark said

Chris, I think that you’re comparing apples with oranges here.

I beg to disagree. I am talking about the same category of people. People who after careful reading of and wrestling with the witness of scripture are quite sure about what that witness is and in all conscience believe that they and the Church are called to live out that witness. I strongly dispute that the practice of the church in not ordaining women is

clearly biblical

clearly biblical

the normal (and in this case may I also say clearly biblical) practices of the church

G’day,

Chris, I didn’t see the words “in my opinion” present when you said:

...the clear witness of scripture as a whole that gender is not a determinant when it comes to ministry and leadership in the Church.

That’s why I responded the way that I did.

Yours in Christ,
Mark

Chris,

I think Mark still has a point.  I think we would all agree that the move to consecrate women as bishops is an unprecedented and new step in church history.  As such, those who object to it on scriptural grounds find themselves not being able to accept the woman’s authority as a bishop and so cannot in good conscience submit to that woman as a bishop.

Now consider someone who believes women may be consecrated or who believe it is a positive and necessary step to consecrate women as bishops.  This is your own position, is it not?  Are you saying that you cannot in good conscience submit to the authority of a male bishop?  You might wish to have a woman as a bishop, but are you really saying that you cannot in good conscience submit to a male bishop? I should be surprised if that were your position. 

Can you see, then, that Mark has a point in his comment that we are comparing oranges with apples?

[
Greetings
Sorry bob ,but i sometimes do get a little carried away with my high comments,
This is my failing & in my old age i should have by now corrected my words.
I am finding the posting on this subject most ineresting & one day Sydney
may see Women Priests & Bishops ,however I do think that with the present
regime & the Teaching College it will be many years .

colin sutherland
.

.

,

Following on from Phil’s point, I would have thought that those who dissent from having a woman as incumbent or bishop should be considered the ‘weaker brother/sister’ as per 1 Corinthians 8. If they were so regarded then the appropriate Biblical approach would be not to appoint a woman as incumbent or Bishop as long as there was anyone who objected.

Now I believe that those who have proceded with these initiatives have not waited until there was no opposition and there are therefore two possibilities:

1.  They do not believe they need to care for the ‘weaker brother’; or

2. They believe that this is not a secondary matter - they must proceed with this matter as an issue that is central to the Christian message. They therefore believe it is a ‘gospel issue’.

I assume Chris A. believes the second option.

Personally I don’t believe it is a central or gospel issue, but if others make it so then it becomes one. Unfortunately it is also a watershed issue - we will have to make a decsision on this issue and there will therefore be practical implications of our decison which mean we are not as united as we may have been.

Robert Denman said:

“Dear Ken,
I think it is too general, and written from one side of the discussion, and only fleetingly touches on variations within the Anglican church’s views.”

sorry, Bob, next time I will post a 10,000 word exposition, in order to satisfy everyone.