First Australian female Bishop appointed in Perth

[Jordan]

Hi Maria,

When I've read Grudem I've always found him to be prudent in his criticisms. I've never read anything from him that could be described as 'ridiculously cruel and derogatory'. Were there any particular comments that you had in mind?

Jordan

[Jereth]

Hi Jenny,

Can I please raise 2 key factors that may not have been accounted for in your analysis.

1. Just saying that there are 5% complementarians is not giving the whole picture. Looking at your data collection methods, I strongly suspect that the 5% you are coming up with are complementarians (like myself) who are vocal enough to speak out about their views, probably because (like myself) they have done some hard exegetical work and come to a conclusion about which they are confident. There would almost certainly be another 10-15% of people who are "instinctive complementarians", as Wayne Grudem calls them -- i.e. people who, on the basis of plain reading of Eph 5, 1 Cor 11, 1 Tim 2 etc., suspect that the complementarian model is correct but have not looked into it enough exegetical or theological depth to develop confidence. Then there is another 5% of people who are convinced complementarians but keep very quiet either for personality reasons, or because they have firmly decided this is not something to cause dissension over, or (let's face it) because in the egalitarian-dominated climate speaking out is too damn scary. (I know numerous people I could put in both of these latter categories).

Then there is probably a large group of 25-30% who are totally undecided in the middle who will go along with whatever model their church practises. Then another 20%-25 who are "instinctive egalitarians" who, like the instinctive complementarians, have a point of view but cannot really defend it exegetically with any confidence. Finally there are the 15-20% egalitarians who are exegetically convinced. Does that add up to 100%? Probably not, because all those numbers are pure guesses. But I hope you'll realise that the true picture is far more complex than just a 95% to 5% landslide. And if can be shown that there is a huge middle ground of people who are either unconvinced or only "instinctively" (but not exegetically) convinced of one POV, then I would suggest that responsible Church leaders need to reopen the exegetical debate to the wider Anglican public rather than keeping it buried.

2. Anecdotal accounts from both egalitarian and complementarian ministers suggest to me that there is a significant age-based gradient with this issue. The generation which is my parent's age fought for the ordination of women in the early 1990s and are overwhelmingly egalitarian, and passionately so. The next sub-generation (who are in their late 30's-early 40's and have primary school aged kids) passively received an egalitarian ethos and therefore assume it is correct without necessarily being able (or willing) to defend it exegetically -- and probably don't really even think much about the whole issue. My generation, and those younger, who went to university in the late 1990's or early 2000's have been taught (by AFES and so forth) to read the Scriptures very literally and therefore either have complementarian convictions, or sense a strange dissonance between their literal reading of Scripture and the church's practice and therefore end up confused/undecided (with a small number flipping over to egalitarianism); or else they simply have never thought about the issue and have a completely open mind.

So you have to make sure that your data collection methods can detect this age-based gradient. Is it possibly the case that people who vote on Synod are all over age 35?

Again, I believe that it is a matter of pastoral responsibility for Church leaders to reopen this debate for the benefit of the under 35's who cannot remember the last time the church properly had the discussion (in the early 1990s), and yet who have every right to make up their mind properly without having a particular Church Order handed down to them from their elders.

cheers, Jereth

[Jereth]

Hi Maria,

maria BS wrote:

I would hope that they would stay, but it doesn’t seem that ridiculous to me that some would think of leaving. I would consider leaving my denomination if they held a view contrary to the view I hold on this issue. For me too - this is a Biblical matter and conscience. ... And like you - it is against my conscience to permanently worship in a church that actively promotes the opposite view.

Yep, I fully agree. When it all boils down conscience is important isn't it. I was speaking to an AFES leader this week, and he said that it is a matter of "personal integrity". If one is convinced that the Scriptures clearly teach a view, then one cannot be expected to tolerate the opposite view indefinitely, it is too painful. In fact, it can be worse -- going back to Paul and "weak and strong": Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. Of course only one side in this gender debate has read the Scriptures correctly, but if we're fully convinced either way then putting up with the opposite model which we believe is wrong could amount to sin. So no one should be made to feel guilty or bad for changing churches or even changing denominations over this.

For the same reason, I am also distressed that a couple of female ministers have told me that they have carried out their ministries (which include preaching and leading churches) without being fully convinced on exegetical grounds that their practice can stand up to 1 Tim 2:11-15  -- they just go on the gut feeling that the rest of the Bible has an egalitarian "thrust" which cancels 1 Tim 2 out. If doing something with doubt/lack of faith can be sinful, then this is dangerous.

I would love to think that people who hold differing views on this issue could still have unity over Christ as Saviour and Lord and still encourage each other as brothers and sisters in Christ - and even remain in the same denomination!

There's no doubt that we still have unity in Christ. This is not a first-order issue, at least not directly. With A.E.O. it may also be possible to remain in the same denomination. Many complementarians like myself, and the other members of our group, value the Anglican gospel heritage enough that we would like to be able to stay around so long as our consciences can tolerate it.

Love in Christ, Jereth

[Jenny George-2]

Jereth,

I agree with a lot of what you say, particularly about the age related bias. It is, of course, true that the majority of Synod voters are over 35 (as a matter of fact I am myself - just! - gosh I don't see myself as an "old fogey" quite yet. Oh dear...). The sad fact is that the Melbourne diocese contains a lot of people over 35. We're an ageing populace right now. So I'm fully taking into account what you say about age. But then the majority of Melbourne diocese is probably over 60 (never mind 35!) so my basic argument still stands.

There may be secret complementarians. I have considered that. But you see I think the vocal ones are a *really* small minority.

I'm looking forward to posting a whole lot of stats about Melbourne dioceses when I finally finish them all in my spare (hmm) weekend time. They're going up on this site so watch this space.

Jeny

[Jereth]

Hi Jenny,

I guess that the problems may/will start to arise in another generation's time when the current under 35's end up running the church. Then we might find that a larger portion of church leaders have problems with the Anglican church's egalitarian model of ministry, potentially reigniting the controversy. This is why I think that the Church needs to think very carefully about what it is doing in this current era -- if it ignores the views of a significant bloc of people it will cause trouble for itself in the future.

Jereth

[maria BS]

Hi Jordan,
Re:
When I've read Grudem I've always found him to be prudent in his criticisms.
Were there any particular comments that you had in mind?


I don't own any of his books - I have only borrowed them from the RIdley Library so I would have to revisit them to reply specifically. But in the meantime, I can respond generally.

However, I must EMPHASISE that I brought this up simply to demonstrate that it is easy to get offended by what people write especially when they are writing against your view. I don't really want to whinge about Grudem online as it probably won't edify many people.

Grudem actually wrote a book (Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth) based on the assumption that the Egalitarian view was a liberal view that was dangerous and must be stopped. He assertion is that it is not evangelical at all. If you are an evangelical and you start reading a book and it tells you on the first few pages that it considers you to be liberal - you are bound to be offended! Other things that I am offended by are chapters in his book Biblical manhood and womanhood that use the biology and physiology of the male and female body to make assertions about our equality in role and sexual relationships. One quote I remember - "the wife is never able to initiate sex with your husband' she must just express a desire and then he can initiate - WHERE IS THIS IN THE BIBLE???????
In order to quote things that I found really offensive I would need to have the books in front of me.
But it is probably more helpful for me to say that that although I have been offended I understand that when people have opposite views on something it is relatively easy to offend each other.

So probably the best thing to learn from all this as Melbourne Anglicans is an encouragement to think really hard about the way that we express our opinions on this topic and to make sure that we speak what we believe to be the truth in LOVE. I think it is quite challenging to debate a topic but to do with love.

One of things that stands out to me is a theological debate forum that we had at RIdley College about 3 or 4 years ago. Three people expressed differing views of female leadership - and we discussed it as a college but there was no antagonism! Just incredible LOVE - I distinctly remember Peter Adam's great emotion and happiness that we were able to discuss and share these very different views and yet have great love for each other. I thought it was such a great encouragement among evangelicals that we were able to study and prepare for ministry together and really encourage each other despite differing views. It think it is important to show respect for others who you are united to through the ONE Christ and yet who you differ to in terms of Biblical interpretation on what JEreth has called a secondary issue. I think it is hard to do this with love and respect, but I have been so encouraged that it is possible through much of my time at RIdley. During my time at Ridley, I was aware of classmates, friends and maybe even faculty that held very different views to me and yet I was never treated with anything but respect and love. Praise God! Perhaps this could be a great encouragement for what we could hope for on a Diocesan leval. And perhaps if any of us ever write something that gets published .... we will remember how easy it is to deeply alienate and offend that who dissagree and instead we will seek to have integrity in our theology while having great love for God and each other.

[maria BS]

Hi Jereth,

Thanks for your reply. I guess I am pretty committed to sticking around in the Anglican church :)
But as you point out, there are lots of tricky issues to work through. I do praise God for the godly men and women he is raising up for leadership in the Anglican church in Melbourne, I have great hope for us Melb Anglicans.... and I think God might too :) At least we can know with great certainty that nothing is outside of His awesome sovereign care.
God Bless,
Maria

[Jordan]

Hi Maria,

I agree that Ridley tries to deal with this issue in a mature way. I hope the college community can continue to have plenty of discussions of the kind that you've described.  

The book by Grudem that you first referred to is probably the one entitled 'Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism?'

In that book he doesn't call any evangelicals 'liberal' outright, but he does argue that the hermeneutics underlying much of the evangelical egalitarian position place one on a path that he believes will lead to a liberal conclusion. I do understand that the title alone - aside from anything in the book - may well offend egalitarians.

However, I think it is wise to suspend judgment until you've read the book and weighed his arguments. Personally I don't think that anyone from either side of the gender debate can lightly dismiss this book. His arguments may carry varying weights, but he furnishes too much evidence for his thesis to be easily set aside. And to voice legitimate concerns is neither cruel nor derogatory; on the contrary, true Christian love demands it.

As for the passage you referred to in 'Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood', perhaps it was this one, it's the only one I could find:

'It is important to say that there is, of course, a feminine pursuit in sexual relations. This is why the word "initiate" is not an exact way of describing masculine leadership in sexual relations. The wife may initiate an interest in romance and may keep on initiating different steps along the way. But there is a difference. A feminine initiation is in effect an invitation for the man to do his kind of initiating. In one sense then you could say that in those times the man is responding. But in fact the wife is inviting him to lead in a way as only a man can, so that she can respond to him.' - John Piper, p. 40.

All Piper is saying is that there is a difference between the way a wife initiates and the way a husband initiates. And I would argue that this dynamic is clearly entailed in the comparison of such verses as 1 Cor 7:4 and Eph 5:22-33.

In Christ,

Jordan


   




   

[maria BS]

Hi Jordan,

I won't respond to your comments on the books,
as there are lots of thoroughly Biblical and well written books that outline the Egalatarian position.
(although ofcourse we both know there are also some pretty dodgy ones for both sides of the debate!)

Rather, let me encourage you to take advantage of your time at RIdley and its LIbrary to ready wide and take the opportunity to read lots of books that represent an opinion other than your own (in all areas - not just this one).
As you suggest, there are books for both sides of this debate, that neither side should take lightly or dismiss. I am really glad that studying at Ridley gave me the opportunity to read significant books from theologians of differing positions on a range of topics and I would encourage all RIdley Students to do likewise.

[Jereth]

maria BS wrote:

as there are lots of thoroughly Biblical and well written books that outline the Egalatarian position.
(although ofcourse we both know there are also some pretty dodgy ones for both sides of the debate!)

Rather, let me encourage you to take advantage of your time at RIdley and its LIbrary to ready wide and take the opportunity to read lots of books that represent an opinion other than your own (in all areas - not just this one).
As you suggest, there are books for both sides of this debate, that neither side should take lightly or dismiss.

Hi Maria,

Last year I wrote a big personal essay (over 20,000 words) about this issue, and as part of that I invested a lot of effort in reading egalitarian books. I picked the ones that seemed to be most prominent or influential, but I'm wondering if you could point me towards the ones you consider to be the best.

The ones I read were:
1. Beyond Sex Roles, by Gilbert Bilezikian (not very good quality, and not convincing)
2. Discovering biblical equality, eds. Pierce and Groothuis (quality varied depending on author; Fee was convincing, most others weren't)
3. Good news for Women, by Rebecca Groothuis (not very good quality, and not convincing)
4. The Reiher book (not good quality, and not convincing)
5. Women in the church, Stanley Grenz (well written but ultimately not convincing)
6. The ordination of women, Paul King Jewett (didn't read all of it)

I also read various essays on the CBE international website, and an article that Graham Cole wrote for CACE, but didn't find any of them very convincing. It may be that I just didn't pick the best books. Is there anything else out there that you could recommend? I am willing to be persuaded by a good argument!

Love in Christ,Jereth

[David Paton-2]

Hi Jenny,
 
Thanks for your bit of dialogue with Matt about the ‘New View’ icon in this forum. It makes reading this discussion a lot easier :)
 
Your paper on church attendance sounds like hard work. I’ll be keen to read it when its finished.  I agree that the overall percentage of Anglicans who hold a complementarian view is important to the way things will pan out in the future.  The Church Law (Further Clarification) Bill, in Section 6 (2) says that Alternative Episcopal Oversight will be provided for a church “on the ground that there are parishioners of that parish whose consciences preclude them from accepting the ministry of a woman who is a bishop”.  So it seems that at some time in the future, where complementarians are placed, and how densely we all congregate to particular churches, will have a big impact on where Alternative Episcopal Oversight occurs.
 
Its good to remind ourselves as well though, that whatever the percentages are, they shouldn’t have any weight on what we believe about this issue. Whatever a majority of people believe, that doesn’t necessarily make it right. I’m thinking of Ezekiel. He was in a tiny minority of God’s people who took God’s warnings seriously. He was warning Israel about judgment, when God said to him ‘they come to you as people come… and they hear what you say but they will not do it.’ Ezekiel. 33:31
 
I think that’s a good reminder for us.
 
In Christ,
 
David

[Matt Williams]

That is an important reminder, David. Truth is not democratically elected!

Human Community is such a powerful thing - a community consensus can make the most ridiculous things seem right.

Equally, though, we can't assume the majority is always wrong either, and so feel validated because we are in the minority. In fact the social aspect of being in a counter-cultural minority can be an even more powerful driver in our quest for a sense of significance and belonging and a cause; and abandoning the minority for the majority becomes too great an emotional cost.

It is very hard to mitigate all these social emotional pulls in our efforts to read the scriptures with genuine openness. But we keep trying, and are glad God is gracious to us (and I guess hope fellow Christians might be too)!

M

[Andrew Bowles]

I wrote a post on this topic at midnight last night and was less than impressed with its clarity this morning, so I deleted it. But Matt has kindly pointed out to me that the Internet, unlike our Heavenly Father, does not place our transgressions as far from us as the East is from the West, and everyone would have been notified of it anyway. So I will try again.

I have a personal belief that Holy Communion should be celebrated more frequently than it is in most evangelical churches, because I think it reflects important aspects of our life and faith in Christ that we lose sight of by only making it an occasional thing, thus distorting our ecclesiology. So, I am in this matter in disagreement with my brethren on a matter of church order, one with significant theological ramifications. But I can't imagine making it a reason to  leave a parish or a denomination, or to 'realign' myself on the basis of my belief.

The issue of ordaining women as priests and bishops strikes me as being analogous to this. It is an issue of church order, with significant theological ramifications, that people within the church disagree on. But it is not a matter of the Apostolic Faith, or a moral question, except as it relates to justice or charity towards women whom God is calling to a particular ministry.

My question was, then, why is there such a storm over this particular issue (from the complementarian side)? Why would people worry about getting alternative episcopal oversight or joining new parishes over it? What is the emotional driver behind the issue? What is it about having a female bishop that makes being part of that church intolerable to someone?

I hope my question is clear.

[Jordan]

Hi Andrew,

If the women's issue is analogous to the question of how frequently we celebrate the Lord's supper, then yes, I agree, its not worth getting worked up over.

And whenever Christians disagree we must do all we can to avoid a storm, even if the issues are of great import and even necessitate division.

However, I think its fair to say that the majority on both sides of this particular debate approach the question as a moral one. That is, both sides view it as a matter of obedience to Scripture, or a matter of justice and charity, or both. Complementarians object to the new developments as being disobedient to biblical and Apostolic commands (1 Cor 14, 1 Tim 2 etc.). Egalitarians insist that these commands are not to be understood as transcultural, so to apply them as such is in fact unbiblical and legalistic; it places restraints upon the consciences of women whom God has gifted and called to ordained ministry.

It's because we disagree over what God's commands actually are that the question is a moral one and not merely about church order.

In Christ,

Jordan

 

[Andrew Bowles]

Thanks Jordan, but my question was slightly different. My analogy was not designed to lead to questions of adiaphora in the theological sense, but in the emotional sense.

The point is that there are numerous areas where churches of all traditions deviate from what might be characterised as 'biblical commands' (leaving aside hermeneutical questions about whether Scripture speaks to us with a voice of command and in what circumstances).  My question is why this issue strikes so deeply to your heart, when other issues don't? What is the theological problem? What would the church lose in your eyes if we were to have women bishops?

For instance, I understand that for some Anglo-Catholics it would mean for them that the fabric of church tradition had been torn up, so that we could no longer call ourselves a 'church' anymore, and that would be devastating. But for an evangelical who places less of an emphasis on tradition, what would the effect be? You might say, 'we've lost faithfulness to Scripture', and that means we're not the church, but as I've pointed out, faithfulness to scripture outside essential matters of the gospel is a dicey matter in any church. And the exegetical questions have not even been settled regardless (in the consensus of the church, apart from individual opinion). So why is this issue different for you?

Andrew

[Jordan]

Hi Andrew,

Your question seems to assume that there are many other issues involving biblical commands that don't strike to my heart as deeply as this one. I don't think that's the case.

But to answer your question, I think the effect of ordaining women as priests and bishops is twofold. Firstly, I am convinced that the hermeneutics underlying much of the egalitarian position tends to undermine the authority of Scripture as a whole. Secondly, I am concerned that God may withhold his blessing from the ministry of the Word, because I believe that when women take certain offices upon themselves, they are acting in disobedience to Scripture. And it is no small act of disobedience, because it is done publicly in the assembly of God's people, and it is done against the witness of the church throughout the ages.

In Christ,

Jordan  

[Andrew Bowles]

"Secondly, I am concerned that God may withhold his blessing from the ministry of the Word"

This was what I was looking for. It makes more sense now. Thankyou.

[David Paton-2]

Hi Matt,

Yes our response towards society can go either way depending on who we are, and our past experience.  I wonder if its a bit genetic too...  That might be going a bit far.

Indeed!  Let's not be persuaded by social circumstances but Scripture!

Cheers,
David

[Jereth]

G'day Andrew,

If I may respond to your question too...
"What is the emotional driver behind the issue?"

I cannot speak for every single person in the evangelical complementarian camp, but I think that these are the big issues for those who I have spoken to, and for myself as well.

1. Obedience to Scripture. Many complementarians regard egalitarian church order as openly going against clear commands of Scripture, and therefore it actually is a moral question for us, not just one of church order. Also, as Jordan said it is something that happens in a public way in the church assembly.
2. Theological danger. Complementarians are concerned about the way that egalitarian theology pushes the church towards theological heresy. For example, witness the growing number of evangelical egalitarian authors who claim that "Father and Son" are only cultural appellations for God, advocate calling God Mother as well as Father, and deny the theological significance of Jesus' manhood. A more extreme example is an article in the IVP Women's Bible commentary (an undoubtedly evangelical publication!) which encourages us to contemplate Jesus on the Cross as a Mother in labour, comparing his shed blood with the blood shed by a woman in childbirth.
3. Threat of liberalisation. We feel that the hermeneutics adopted by egalitarians (eg. William Webb's "redemptive movement hermeneutic") enable Christians to invalidate ever increasing portions of Scripture, threatening our historic doctrines of biblical authority and inerrancy. We see this exemplified in the way that many denominations which first embraced egalitarianism have gone on to relativise the Bible's moral teaching on things like sexuality, divorce/remarriage and the value of human life (especially the unborn); and even core doctrines like the uniqueness of Christ and substitutionary atonement. In other words we are anxious that egalitarianism is a the thin edge of the wedge of liberalism.
4. Historic orthodoxy. Even some evangelicals (such as myself) value church tradition, insofar as it is a witness to the way that the Holy Spirit has interpreted the Word to many generations of godly, regenerate believers before us. We see 20th century egalitarianism as a disruption of this continuous witness to Scripture's teaching on the qualifications of church leaders.
5. Masculinity and femininity. Many complementarians (male and female) feel that egalitarianism undermines what we understand to be Biblical concepts of manhood and womanhood. We feel that the integrity of our marriages are threatened by egalitarian teaching, and indeed our own deep seated identities as male and female. There is concern that the Church is being increasingly feminised and thus increasingly alien to blokes. Many men feel deeply uneasy and personally threatened when listening to female preachers -- it goes against our innate sense that men should be protecting, leading and providing for women rather than vice versa. This innate sense was built into us from an early age, and we see it affirmed in Scripture.

Add all this together (and probably a few other factors as well), and you can see why this becomes something with so much emotional force for complementarians. The issues involve moral obedience, truth and error, and personal identity. It is not the kind of secondary issue that we can cooly disagree about, like the age of the earth, how often we have communion, whether we should speak in tongues, and what the millennium is. Nevertheless, even in the midst of emotional disagreement we do our best to keep the hand of fellowship extended to those with whom we disagree and pray for ever increasing understanding.

Does that answer your question mate?

God bless,
Jereth

[Jereth]

Dear brother, if I may respectfully make some comments on a couple other things you said in response to Jordan...

Andrew Bowles wrote:

You might say, 'we've lost faithfulness to Scripture', and that means we're not the church, but as I've pointed out, faithfulness to scripture outside essential matters of the gospel is a dicey matter in any church.

In my opinion, faithfulness to Scripture outside "essential matters" is not a dicey matter, or at least it should not be. If Scripture is God's infallible word, and carries his full authority (as I believe),  then no individual Christian or church should be satisfied with anything less than full, 100% faithfulness to it. We acknowledge that there are sometimes differences of opinion over interpretation, and also our sinfulness. Nevertheless, perfect fidelity to Scriptural teaching ought to be the standard for anyone who calls themselves a Christian (or least an evangelical or bible-believing Christian).

I don't think this undermines the concept of "in doubtful matters liberty, in all things charity". Even where differences of interpretation exist, each Christian is bound to perfect obedience, according to the dictates of his or her own conscience -- that is the standard by which we'll be judged on the last day (Romans 14:3-4, 10-12).

And the exegetical questions have not even been settled regardless (in the consensus of the church, apart from individual opinion). So why is this issue different for you?

My perspective is slightly different... I think the exegetical questions about biblical manhood and womanhood were settled by the consensus of the Church in the first and second centuries; and this consensus held for over 1900 years until challenged by what is, in the sweep of Christian history, a very small minority!! But that's my perspective and you're most welcome to disagree