"Where is the conservative theological voice?"

[Jereth]

I thought it would be safer to start a new thread for this response to Gordo -- so the topic can be discussed apart from the particular event of Bp Darling's consecration.

I'm  disappointed at the apparent absence of any conservative theological views being expressed in public within Melbourne on this subject. I've just posted a comment on The Melbourne Anglican website to this effect, which allowing for comment moderation will appear in the next little while.

I hope it's just a misperception on my part, so I might ask here as well: where is the theologically conservative voice on this topic? My outside view is that it is conspicuously absent, and every time I've asked the question so far the view has either been confirmed, or people have ducked for cover.

Anyway, interested in your comments, especially if you can show how my perception's mistaken on this.

I'm not a pluralist generally speaking (!), but I think Gordo that there are 3 possible answers to your question, each of them true depending on the circumstances.

1. The theologically conservative voice on women's ordination is dead
Particularly if you are an outside observer as you say, I think that would be a fair conclusion. Melbourne is overrun by egalitarianism / "evangelical feminism", the diocese is pro-women's ordination, so is Ridley College, and so are most of the high profile evangelical leaders and parishes. You won't find much opposition, voiced publicly. People who do stick their heads out get promptly decapitated. The "conservative theological voice" has rolled over and died, or left for the Presbyterian church.

2. The theologically conservative voice on women's ordination is dormant or in hiding
This is also true. Myself and a few conservative mates have compiled a fair-sized list of people we know who are conservative on women's ordination, which includes numerous clergy -- mostly younger ones. There are also many laypeople who are conservative. The younger generation of candidates coming through college has a high proportion of conservatives, and the college has shifted somewhat to be more supportive of conservatives. People influenced by AFES and the like are largely conservative. They're all there, biding their time, waiting for the right moment to speak out.

The "conservative theological voice" can never be snuffed out, because ordinary faithful people are reading their Bibles and praying -- it's as simple as that. People read Ephesians 5, and 1 Timothy 2, and 1 Corinthians 11, and the passages speak clearly for themselves. The egalitarian arguments are seen to be weak, unconvincing and fraudulent. The Word of God is actively reforming and the Spirit is at work. So we're here, and always will be here, even if we're presently in the minority and largely in hiding.

3. The theologically conservative voice on women's ordination is alive and kicking
I think this is also true. I have spoken to quite a few people for whom this is a black and white issue of biblical obedience, who are quite worked up, and who are displeased with the ordination of a female bishop. One chap I know (you probably know him too) spoke out at Synod last year against female bishops. Christ Church Hawthorn last year had a marvellous 10 sermon series on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood which is available as MP3s on their website (Rachel and I are working our way through them, they are like a breath of fresh air).

At least 2 evangelical parishes with conservative leaders have told their bishops they cannot accept Barbara Darling's leadership and authority over them, even as an administrative bishop. Other vicars have indicated that if/when a female bishop assumes a regional role, they will ask for alternative episcopal oversight. An Anglo-Catholic (?) clergyman wrote to TMA this month, eliciting a response from the diocese revealing that a policy for alternative oversight is already in place.

Informal networks of disgruntled people are forming up around this issue. I am a member of one such group. We are actively praying, meeting and working in favour of the biblical view.


Does that answer satsify you Gordo? I think in summary it is a mixture of frustration and hope. Thank you for stimulating the discussion.

Jereth

[Andrew Bowles]

I don't think Gordon was asking whether or not there are people who are conservative on the issue out there, I thought the question was whether there were any publications of conservative opinions. To that the answer seems to be no, and there probably won't be until a group is formed for that purpose.

[Gordon Cheng]

Hey Jereth,

thanks for taking the time to kick the discussion off. I'm a bit scared of responding as I might get bopped for spamming again!

But I am pleased to hear of the younger conservative individuals who've got concerns in this area, and they have been mentioned by people other than you too (not that I doubt their existence!)

When I started working in Melbourne I was 27 years old and very much felt that the right thing to do was to keep my head down. That changed over time because I felt I really needed to follow through on some of the stuff that had become obvious to me from the reading of Scripture, but it is an awkward position to be in, and tends to make life harder rather than easier.

Anyway I am a guest in these parts so I might just sit back and see how the discussion develops, but thanks again for raising it.

Incidentally TMA published my comment, along with a polite smackdown.

Melburnian smackdowns are invariably polite!

[Jereth]

Hi again Gordo,

Gordon Cheng wrote:

When I started working in Melbourne I was 27 years old and very much felt that the right thing to do was to keep my head down. That changed over time because I felt I really needed to follow through on some of the stuff that had become obvious to me from the reading of Scripture, but it is an awkward position to be in, and tends to make life harder rather than easier.

Yes. I've had a read of some recent comments made by Andrew Moody on the Sydney Anglican discussion forum, and his sentiments resonate with me. There really is a major problem with silence, cowardice and "self-censorship" on this issue.

Personally I see this as a matter of personal and biblical integrity. Firstly, if you believe something with conviction, and witness error being committed, you have a responsibility to say something (especially when no one else is). "Faith without works is dead". Secondly, conversations with my group of complementarian friends have persuaded me that the prevalent Melbourne excuse: "stay quiet on this issue for the sake of the greater long-term evangelical strategy" is flawed. I do not know of any command of Scripture which permits Christians to accept 90% holiness (with 10% knowing compromise) in the interests of some greater goal or strategy. That is a worldly philosophy of pragmatism -- "let us do (tolerate) evil so that good may result". No, we are called to be 100% obedient, regardless of the situation we're in - "be holy, for I am holy". The pragmatist does not trust God's promise that he will honour those who strive for complete obedience, and instead trusts in what we humans can achieve with our own clever efforts.

I'm fortunate in that I'm currently not looking to be ordained, or anything like that, so I have immunity to speak my mind -- and speak my mind I will. It certainly is harder for people working within the system, but I think they still need to ask themselves who they are ultimately answerable to.

BTW Gordo what is the URL for your comment on the Melbourne Anglican website? I can't find it.

In Christ,
Jereth

[Gordon Cheng]

Jereth wrote:

BTW Gordo what is the URL for your comment on the Melbourne Anglican website? I can't find it.

In Christ,
Jereth

Hi Jereth,

I see you found it!

for those who still can't, it is

http://tinyurl.com/4rhbwp


(Oh, by the way, I wasn't meaning that you should be the one taking the fight to them! I'd say there's a stable door and horse bolting thing that has gone on here ;-)  )

[jane churchland]

I understand that Gordon's question was about publically voiced comment... one part of the answer would be that there was a letter (which I read as clear, somewhat strident, and strangely argued) in the last TMA. So this voice is certainly not absent.

As far as what people on the ground are saying, I now belong to a parish which has an ordained woman as part of the ministry team, and there is certainly not unqualified support for women's ordination amongst the church membership, even amongst the leadership. I have discovered this by way of personal conversation, not public disagreement. Some at least, then, do not think the innovation warranted, but neither do they see it as a do or die issue.

Finally I must say that speaking of an anti-women's ordination position as 'the conversative theological voice' is in my opinion unhelpful. It doesn't describe what it actually means; it meanwhile suggests that those of different opinion are axiomatically not theologically conservative.

[Tracy]

Jane churchland wrote

Finally I must say that speaking of an anti-women's ordination position as 'the conversative theological voice' is in my opinion unhelpful. It doesn't describe what it actually means; it meanwhile suggests that those of different opinion are axiomatically not theologically conservative.

Thank you Jane for that. There are some of us women who are priested who consider ourselves theological conservatives. To say that we cannot disagree with the "anti-women's priesting" group without being branded as liberals is just simply unfair.There are solid evangelicals on both sides of this fence.
Someone used the following phrase last year: "evangelicals eat their own"- how true that seems at times.

[Gordon Cheng]

jane churchland wrote:

Finally I must say that speaking of an anti-women's ordination position as 'the conversative theological voice' is in my opinion unhelpful. It doesn't describe what it actually means; it meanwhile suggests that those of different opinion are axiomatically not theologically conservative.

There really is no alternative. For the best part of 20 centuries, women have not been ordained within Christian churches. The theologically conservative position on this subject is beyond reasonable debate.

[Luke Isham]

Gordon Cheng wrote:

jane churchland wrote:

Finally I must say that speaking of an anti-women's ordination position as 'the conversative theological voice' is in my opinion unhelpful. It doesn't describe what it actually means; it meanwhile suggests that those of different opinion are axiomatically not theologically conservative.

There really is no alternative. For the best part of 20 centuries, women have not been ordained within Christian churches. The theologically conservative position on this subject is beyond reasonable debate.

I agree Gordon that the conservative (or 'complimentarian') position has been held for most of the church's history and the 'egalatrian' position is a more recent innovation but it's wrong to say it's beyond reasonable debate!  I think your confusing your perception of the opposing side with the nature or the quality of the debate.  

[Gordon Cheng]

I'm not trying to make any judgement about the quality of the argument, Luke. All I mean is that once a particular practice has been in place for 19 1/2 centuries, that's the conservative position. Any other practice may be interesting, novel, brilliant, ground-breaking, a great leap forward or whatever other positive-sounding expression you care to use as a descriptor, but it ain't conservative. End of story.

[Jereth]

Let's remember that when we talk about egalitarianism arising in the last 1/2 century, we're only talking about one small branch of the universal church, i.e. Western Protestantism. Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy along with Protestant churches in the non-West maintain the historic, biblical position of male church leadership. The truth is that egalitarians are a tiny minority in terms of the church universal.

I agree with Luke and Gordon that male leadership is the only "conservative" Christian position -- there's no way that one can possibly argue otherwise without either redefining English words or distorting history.

At the same time I don't think egalitarianism per se is "liberal" -- it is "new", "innovative", "progressive" etc. but certainly not all egalitarians have liberal theology and many do think of themselves as "evangelical" (whatever that means these days). An argument could be made however that the hermeneutics used to arrive at the egalitarian position are "liberal". I for one cannot see how egalitarian hermeneutics don't inevitably lead us to the conclusion that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle and practice. If clear, direct biblical commands about male leadership and female submission can be dismissed as cultural, so can clear, direct biblical commands about sexuality.

Jereth

[Luke Isham]

I agree Jereth that if some principles are regarded as merely 'cultral' then what's to stop other principles as being regarded as merely cultural.  However Egalitarians would argue, I think, that because homosexual relationships are sinful you can't relativise principles about them as cultural.  (This of course comes with the presupposition that some parts of Scripture are more vital then others.)

[Jereth]

Luke,

It still comes back to what you think about Scripture. Is it inerrant and authoritative in all its parts? Or can we sidestep some bits which don't fit with our culture?

If we can sidestep Ephesians 5:22ff. and 1 TImothy 2:11ff. why can't we sidestep Romans 1:18ff? Perhaps the idea that "homosexual relationships are sinful" is itself cultural.

Jereth

[Tracy]

Brothers, your argument assumes that those in favour of women's ordination 'dismiss' or 'sidestep' (your words) direct biblical commands rather than interpret them more accurately than you do! You need to try to see the argument from another perspective.
The arguments in favour of women's ministry, for me, are from Scripture.  I believe in women's ministry AND I believe that Scripture is innerant and authoritative AND I am serious about responsible exegesis.
Have a look at these articles which will take about 10 minutes to read....
Graham Cole's article, with reference to J I Packer

http://www.bettertogether.org.au/pdf/Graham_Cole_Women_teaching_men_Bible.pdf

This one is by Walter Kaiser
http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/pdf_files/free_articles/kaiser_correcting.pdf

P.S.Therefore the joining of the women's ministry debate to the one about homosexuality is offensive and always has been.

[Jereth]

Hello Tracy,

Thank you for the discussion.

I assume that by "women's ministry" you mean that women can perform all roles and positions in church. I too am highly in favour of women's ministry; only I believe on grounds of scripture that women should not preach to men or exercise leadership over churches. There are of course lots of other ministry scripture encourages women to do. (Just want to get the terminology and definitions straight.)

Luke and I have read Graham Cole's article and we are not convinced by him. I believe that he takes an extremely "creative" exegetical approach which in the end does not make coherent sense of the text at all. I have personally written out a thorough response to Cole's argument and those of other egalitarian exegetes of 1 Timothy 2:11-14. (It is part of a more comprehensive essay which unfortunately is not for public distribution at this time)

I'm not sure if I have read Kaiser, but I have read numrous papers from the CBE international website and, far from convincing me, they have reassured me that egalitarianism does not rest on sound exegesis.

I respect your right to disagree and hold a different view however.

On the matter of the link to homosexuality, I understand you and others might find this offensive; however I do have great difficulty distinguishing the hermeneutics and exegesis for the two issues, and I would be dishonest if I said otherwise. I understand it is the same for other complementarians. I do not intend to offend, just to state a fact.

Jereth

[jane churchland]

Jereth wrote:

On the matter of the link to homosexuality, I understand you and others might find this offensive; however I do have great difficulty distinguishing the hermeneutics and exegesis for the two issues, and I would be dishonest if I said otherwise.

I don't think I would honestly say I was offended by the link, although in other circumstances I might be. I am however genuinely disappointed. To say that the two issues are hermeneutically indistinguishable just seems like lazy thinking to me. Women are encouraged to exercise ministry, including teaching ministry, and commended for doing so at several points in the new testament. Obviously these are not the only scriptures pertaining to the question, but they do exist. Sexual acts between members of the same sex is a whole other ball game.

I maintain that calling an anti-women's ordination position 'the conservative theological voice' is unhelpful. Of course women's ordination is an innovation in church practice (arguably not compared to some practices in the earliest times, but certainly from the vast majority of church practice for the vast majority of church history). But then, to take an unconnected example, allowing church members to lend money at interest was once innovative. (And is spoken clearly against in scripture.) And I hear that certain 'conservatives' are pretty keen on another innovation, lay presidency at communion. Despite the old chestnut, it doesn't seem obvious to me that something is unorthodox merely because it is a new idea or practice. Penal substitutionary atonement was a new idea at one point. (And much later than I had assumed before studying the history of this area of theology!!!)  Surely we mean more by 'conservative' than just 'we do and say exactly and without change to the least particular what the church has always done and said'? Speaking of a single 'conservative theological voice', implicitly univocal on all issues, and especially applying it to a question where there is demonstrable disagreement within otherwise seemingly 'conservative' circles just doesn't seem sensible to me. And certainly not helpful.

[Jereth]

Hi  Jane,

jane churchland wrote:

I don't think I would honestly say I was offended by the link, although in other circumstances I might be. I am however genuinely disappointed. To say that the two issues are hermeneutically indistinguishable just seems like lazy thinking to me. Women are encouraged to exercise ministry, including teaching ministry, and commended for doing so at several points in the new testament. Obviously these are not the only scriptures pertaining to the question, but they do exist. Sexual acts between members of the same sex is a whole other ball game.

Firstly if you will allow me to explain why I find the 2 issues hermeneutically indistinguishable. The reality is that there are a handful of key texts in each case which clearly and unambiguously assert something: homosexuality is wrong (Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6 and a couple OT texts); and women are under the headship of men (Eph 5, 1 tim 2, 1 Pet 3, 1 Cor 11, etc.). Egalitarians neutralise the latter set of key texts by arguing that there is a whole biblical "thrust" which somehow overrides these texts (note I've never been able to perceive this "thrust" myself, it seems to be in the eye of the beholder). Pro-gay Christians neutralise the former set of texts likewise by appealing to a contrary, overriding thrust. The ultimate thrust of the Bible is equality, justice, fairness, non-discrimination, etc. for all people; therefore texts which appear to "discriminate" (on grounds of gender or sexual preference) are obviously culturally driven. The hermeneutics are the same are they not? Then there are the "trajectory" hermeneutics which again are employed in precisely the same way by both advocates of women's ordination and pro-gay advocates.

Secondly you mention that the Bible encourages women to do ministry and to teach. Of course it does. But I cannot see anywhere where women are told to teach or exercise authority over men -- in fact the opposite is true, they are commanded not to. Egalitarian literature is full of alleged "examples" where women are in authority over men, but none of these are convincing in the least (Priscilla, Phoebe, "Junia", and so on). It is a case of crystal clear prescriptive texts vs. dubious guesswork and inferences from non-prescriptive texts.

BTW I'm happy to go on discussing this if you want to, but on the other hand if it's clear that no one is willing to change their mind and it will be ultimately unfruitful, then it would probably be most helpful to stop.

Jereth

[jane churchland]

Jereth,

You see no difference between the cases. You have explained yourself clearly enough. It is possible that at some point you, or I may see things differently. I do not think it is necessary to hold an 'egalitarian' position in order to distinguish between the two sets of arguments.