Well, it sounds like we are bording on the Pharisaical with all this talk about church law…

I think we need to consider what Paul had to say to Timothy about bishops more than any “church law”. I remember something simple “The husband of but one wife"… I get the impression that we’ve forgotten the contentious 1 Corinthians 11 as well… “I do not permit a woman to have authority over a man”. Paul made other decisions that were “cave-ins”, such as permitting people to marry in 1 Cor 7. Moses accepted that Israel was hard of heart, so he made concessions to them as well (as God’s chosen prophet of the time). but.... There is no ambiguity about 1 Cor 11. Absolutely none… whether a man has long hair or not, that’s a heart issue. Do you submit? Is the hair a rebellion? But Paul is very clear about the ordering of God, Man, Woman.

If women do not have a valid and crucial ministry in female and child ministry, then please tell me why this isn’t enough? I don’t understand the need to claim a position of authority here. How does a woman serve the church better as a concession to the feminist movement, sending a message to the media that the church is caving in to outside pressure? Do we need to be the same as the Pope, declaring that Islam and Roman Catholicism worship the same god? Do we need the media rubbing their hands and asking “so what about the gay community now?”, because that’s what a slippery slope policy in “church law” results in.

Chris and Phil,
Thankyou for that information. It is very helpful, and eases my concerns about the legality of the consecrations.

You are most welcome Robert. I am glad it helped.
Mark you are so correct. I see that I am guilty of that which I complain against. I was not as careful as I would have liked to have been as I got to the end of that longish post. Please accept my apologies. Mea culpa!
Philip says:

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.

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.

Leigh says:

I get the impression that we’ve forgotten the contentious 1 Corinthians 11 as well… “I do not permit a woman to have authority over a man”. Paul made other decisions that were “cave-ins”, such as permitting people to marry in 1 Cor 7. Moses accepted that Israel was hard of heart, so he made concessions to them as well (as God’s chosen prophet of the time). but.... There is no ambiguity about 1 Cor 11. Absolutely none…

I wonder whether I am reading the same Bible? I see nothing like Leigh suggests in I Corinthians, perhaps he means I Timothy 2?  The problem with taking such texts and saying that they apply for all time, in all situations and as such reveal what God has to say about the role of women in ministry and leadership is that we should then expect not to find any examples in scripture of women fulfilling such roles. Yet the NT has clear cases of women disciples, teachers, prophets and deacons/ministers. We have near certitude in perceiving Junia to be a female apostle. It is possible to see female elders in 1 Tim. 5:2. Thus women appear on nearly all, if not all, levels of leadership in the NT Church, plus there are the obvious Old Testament examples too, such as Miriam (Micah 6.4), Deborah (Judges 4.4), and Huldah (2 Kings 22.14). It seems to me that the only conclusion that can be drawn from this (unless one either dismisses the biblical witness as contradictory and thus irrelevant or concludes that Scriture is at loggerheads with itself and that the Church can only choose one biblical view against the other) is that passages such as I Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14.33ff are addressing a particular local situation at a particular point of time and are not meant to be seen as prescriptive for all time and places.  Better Biblical scholars than I have made out the case for such a conclusion thus uphoding the integrity of the Biblical witness.
Leigh I don’t intend to offend and I apologise inadvance if I do, but I find the inferences in your last paragraph offensive and not at all in keeping with the general quality of the discussion on these fora.

Chris Albany - 05 June 2008 12:51 AM

I have no difficulty with a male bishop per se, what I would (and do) have some difficuty with is a Bishop who does not accept that my position on this issue is based on scriptural grounds and is unwilling to be flexible and pastorally sensitive enough to allow me and those who have the same understanding to receive the ministry of women. 

Chris,
it seems you believe any group convinced that their interpretation is scripture is valid, should get their own way endorsed by the bishops of our diocese.

Do I understand your logic correctly?
Do you see any limit to the application of this logic?
It seems very much like a slippery slope ...

Chris, I have never heard any of our bishops in Sydney accuse all who support the ordination of women to the presbyterate and consecration as bishops of not arguing their case on scriptural grounds.  I think you would agree that there are some who don’t argue from scripture, but the bishops recognise men such as you do. 

However, they would contend (and I agree with them) that the arguments you put (such as in your most recent post) do not convince them/me that our reading of the Scriptures is wrong.  They/ I are not convinced that passages such as 1 Timothy 2 have a limited, local application.  The brief reference to Junia in Romans 16:7 and the way in which the word apostle is used in various ways in the NT is not a strong argument for women acting with the same authority as the 12 Apostles and Paul. 

I am glad that you do not have problem with male bishops per se (I didn’t think you would have such a problem); and that is where the situation people in other dioceses have with women bishops is not comparable with yours.  For they do have a problem with women bishops per se; they believe they have no scriptural warrant to have this ministry.

Richard Blight - 04 June 2008 07:30 PM

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’.

There is another way to view Barbara Darling’s appointment in Melbourne to a non-parish oversight role. That is: those who appointed her do believe it is a secondary matter, that they nevertheless believe it is biblically permissable to ordain a woman as a bishop but have chosen an oversight role for her that is unlikely to cause the weaker brothers and sisters of the diocese to stumble.

I can’t speak for the Archbishop of Melbourne on this one, but I think it is possible to sketch this third alternative.

It’s probably also helpful to note for people used to the way this issue plays out in Sydney that Melbourne is quite different. Probably the majority of evangelicals in Melbourne (yes “real” evangelicals) support women in ordained ministry, even the episcopate. There are quite a few evangelicals who don’t as well, but the dividing lines are not between evangelical churches and non-evangelical churches. Alternative oversight in Melbourne, in my estimation, would be unlikely to be voted for by the majority of any parish bar perhaps one or two.

This leads to the problem of what you do when alternative oversight is desired by a minority in a parish. Do people rearrange themselves into like-minded groupings in parishes? Do churches split and people leave? It’s a tough one that could be quite distracting from the church’s main purpose and for that reason I’m thankful that in the short-term anyway this will not be an issue for Melbourne because Bishop Darling will not be a regional bishop.

For more on all of this, there’s been a bit of discussion on a new online forum started by Melbourne evangelicals:

Melbourne Anglican Study Group

Jenny

I think I’d argue that in the current climate, one significant test for whether or not someone is genuinely evangelical is whether or not they are prepared to publicly oppose women holding the office of bishop.

Prior to recent events, it was still possible to treat this question as secondary, even trivial. I remember Broughton Knox as principal of Moore College arguing that although women ought not to be ordained as priests, it was fine for them to be bishops as this was an essentially administrative (and therefore diaconal) role.

However, it’s fairly clear in current times that many want to arrogate far greater authority than this to the office of bishop. Not only this, but within Australian (and in particular Melburnian) Anglicanism it’s no longer possible not to have an opinion.

I suppose someone could be an evangelical and wrongly conclude that the current appointments of women as bishops represent a good or acceptable move, but at that particular point they would not really be able to sustain a claim to be evangelical in their thinking.

Hi Jenny,

Thank you for the link to the Melbourne discussion on this difficult matter.

Having met many Melbourne evangelical clergy and laypersons, many of whom I count a friends, I would agree with you that most of them have no problem with women bishops/presbyters.  However, some do, and that is where the problem lies.  Further, those holding this view often feel enormous pressure not to speak out about their concerns, which is a great sadness.

Given that a clergyperson has particular responsibilities to a bishop, including non regional bishops, how is that clergyperson to deal with the problem that his conscience precludes him from accepting the ministry of a woman bishop?  I’m sure all clergy have been able to accept the ministry of male bishops (though some might prefer a woman) but the problem created now is nnew and unprecedented; some now will not be able to accept the ministry of a bishop because they believe women are precluded from the ministry of a bishop. 

Having a non-regional bishop does not solve all the problems.

Gordon Cheng - 05 June 2008 01:05 PM

I think I’d argue that in the current climate, one significant test for whether or not someone is genuinely evangelical is whether or not they are prepared to publicly oppose women holding the office of bishop.

Prior to recent events, it was still possible to treat this question as secondary, even trivial. I remember Broughton Knox as principal of Moore College arguing that although women ought not to be ordained as priests, it was fine for them to be bishops as this was an essentially administrative (and therefore diaconal) role.

However, it’s fairly clear in current times that many want to arrogate far greater authority than this to the office of bishop. Not only this, but within Australian (and in particular Melburnian) Anglicanism it’s no longer possible not to have an opinion.

I suppose someone could be an evangelical and wrongly conclude that the current appointments of women as bishops represent a good or acceptable move, but at that particular point they would not really be able to sustain a claim to be evangelical in their thinking.

Hm - I think it’s more helpful to recognise people as evangelical based on the fact that they treat the Bible as authoritative and seek to conform their understanding to it rather than the particular conclusions they reach on a matter that is of secondary importance. Otherwise we’re going to have a lot of separating out people as not evangelicals because they read the Bible differently about a whole host of “secondary issues”.

But perhaps you are arguing that this issue (not how you read the Bible but the actual issue of women’s role in the church) is of primary importance?

Jenny

Richard
I’m not sure that employing 1 Corinthians 8 in order to regard those who cannot accept women bishops as ‘weaker brothers’ is helpful in the end ( - though I appreciate your sentiment!).
In v.8 Paul says ‘We are no worse off if we do not eat [food offered to idols], and no better off if we do’. In the present issue this leads to saying that ‘We are no worse off if we do not accept women bishops, and no better off if we do’. That is, the issue of women bishops is non-central and secondary, as you believe.
However, staying in 1 Corinthians but going to chapter 11, Paul bases the headship of husbands over their wives on the headship of God over Christ (v.3). It is that intra-trinitarian connection between the Father and the Son that makes the issue of females in headship roles over males a non-negotiable, central issue. So it is anything but secondary. Elsewhere Paul also grounds the headship of husbands over wives in the Lordship of Christ over the church (Eph 5.22-23), and in the order of creation (1 Timothy 2.12-13).
It was wrestling with texts like these that on balance persuaded me to finally drop the egalitarian position in favour of the complementarian one in about 2002.
Chris holds that texts like 1 Cor 11.2-16 should not be interpreted as applying for all time, in all situations. But the intra-trinitarian basis of headship there does not leave that option open to us. And the ‘bookends’ of the passage also indicate that Paul did not originate this teaching but passed it on (v.2) as something common from all the churches of God (v.16). That is, headship was not a time limited, local option even within the New Testament. The onus is on those who support the novelty of women bishops to show why these headship arguments do not apply today. Analogies with slavery will not do the job.
Regards,
Phil

Jenny George - 05 June 2008 01:14 PM

But perhaps you are arguing that this issue (not how you read the Bible but the actual issue of women’s role in the church) is of primary importance?

Jenny

I would argue that the issue of women as bishops has become primary in the current climate, although even 5 years ago it was probably trivial. I imagine there are parts of the world such as Rwanda or Burma where it remains microscopically unimportant.

Oh, speaking of microscopic, perhaps in the providence of God the MASG discussion forums you pointed us towards appear microscopic in font size—at least to me—which ever browser (Safari, Firefox, Opera) or computer I happen to use. However, I warn you that if the problem gets fixed I may even offer a comment ;-)

Sometimes issues matter. Sometimes they don’t. By proceeding with various installations of women as bishops, some sections of the Anglican denomination have insisted ‘We really think this is very important, so important that we can’t delay any longer and we must act.’

If that is how important the question is to them, it would be at the very least discourteous not to give due weight to what opponents of the gospel may be saying.

[PS Apologies, I realize I’ve been writing ‘Kay’ instead of ‘Barbara’ with reference to the recent Melbourne appointment. Will go back and edit to correct. Sorry for confusion.]

I think it’s more helpful to recognise people as evangelical based on the fact that they treat the Bible as authoritative and seek to conform their understanding to it rather than the particular conclusions they reach on a matter that is of secondary importance

I’m inclined to agree with Jenny on this (except for the ‘secondary importance’ bit).  Even though I am in agreement with the understanding of Scripture that Gordon and others have articulated with regard to women in ministry (whether presbyter or bishop), I would be very hesitant to argue that someone who disagreed with me was therefore not an evangelical.  An evangelical is a person who holds to the primary authority of the Bible over all other sources of authority in matters of faith, life and doctrine.  Sometimes evangelicals disagree over the interpretation of Scripture, even on issues of great significance.  That doesn’t mean they can no longer be called an evangelical.  There may of course be a point where there are so many deviations from fundamental truths that, even though a person claims to be an evangelical, others will old that claim to be spurious, but I don’t think a difference of opinion over this one issue, namely, the roles appropriate for men and women within the church, is enough to justify such a conclusion.

Bob

I understand that point of view, Bob, and have argued it many times myself—in Melbourne of all places—before I changed my mind. As we are dealing with the definition of a word, we are probably on a hiding to nowhere anyway if we keep on this track, as words change their meaning.

(I am seriously thinking of ditching the descriptor ‘evangelical’ and heading back towards ‘fundamentalist’ ;-) despite the protests of our Archbishop regarding that label.)

Anyway, this quote from Luther sums up why I changed my mind (Is it james flavin who has it in his sig at the moment?), and I’ll probably leave it at that:

If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the Word of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Him. Where the battle rages there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battle front besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.

Briefwechsel [Correspondence], Luther’s Works Weimar Edition. vol. 3, pp. 81f

Love it.

Gordon, but couldn’t they argue the devil’s on your side with this issue? Luther was fighting the established position too.

I think I’d take Jenny’s stance too. Cause if people interpret the Bible wrongly we can always call them heretics.

Dannii Willis - 05 June 2008 02:56 PM

Gordon, but couldn’t they argue the devil’s on your side with this issue? Luther was fighting the established position too.

That is indeed what some of those pushing for inclusion not only of women bishops, but practising homosexual bishops, are currently arguing within TEC.

They’re saying that if you don’t agree with us on this issue, then you can’t belong to the church—that is, this is a gospel issue (for the liberal supporters of homosexual practise)

Click through on the link in the OP and you will see the situation outlined, at least as regards women bishops. Those who supported the ordination of women to the priesthood back in 1992 regarded anyone who claimed this situation would arise as a complete nutter. No-one’s saying that now.