First Australian female Bishop appointed in Perth

[Andrew Bowles]

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.


There's a hermeneutical issue here as well, a MASG message board hermeneutic! Maybe you should ask of the text of my post as you're exegeting it, 'Would a Ridley student really suggest that we shouldn't obey the Bible?'. Probably not.

I was trying to elicit the theological presuppositions that are driving this issue for people. I assume that evangelicals believe in the inspiration of the Bible - but here we are, with some people talking about leaving and others not. My question was (and is), 'what's going on?'

[Jereth]

Andrew Bowles wrote:

I was trying to elicit the theological presuppositions that are driving this issue for people. I assume that evangelicals believe in the inspiration of the Bible - but here we are, with some people talking about leaving and others not. My question was (and is), 'what's going on?'

Did the responses from Jordan and me clarify this for you?

Having read what we've written, do you think that our "angst" about this women's ordination issue is justified, or should we cool off a little? (I'm happy to hear your honest opinion about this.)

cheers mate (P.S. I hope the study this year is going well!)
Jereth

[Luke Isham]

Hi Bowlsie,

Couldn't help but notice this comment of yours:

"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)."

Faithfulness to scripture is a dicey matter even in "essential matters of the gospel."  You could also say the exegetical questions about these "essential matters of the gospel" aren't settled.  Scripture is sufficient for faith and godly living despite considerable variation in opinion.  For example the Trinity is still being discussed despite 2,000 years of church tradition.  A lack of consensus shouldn't be a barrier in successfully discovering the meaning and applying scripture.

[Andrew Bowles]

Luke Isham wrote:

Hi Bowlsie,

Couldn't help but notice this comment of yours:

"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)."

Faithfulness to scripture is a dicey matter even in "essential matters of the gospel."  You could also say the exegetical questions about these "essential matters of the gospel" aren't settled.  Scripture is sufficient for faith and godly living despite considerable variation in opinion.  For example the Trinity is still being discussed despite 2,000 years of church tradition.  A lack of consensus shouldn't be a barrier in successfully discovering the meaning and applying scripture.

Hi Luke. I don't want to run around the loop too much with the doctrine of Scripture at the moment (it's too easy to misunderstand each other), so I think we can save this for our next whiteboard session!

Jereth, I perfectly understand that if you believe that having a female bishop would mean that the Holy Spirit would no longer be working through your preaching (which is how I understand Jordan's concern), then you would consider leaving. I disagree with your theology, but I understand the angst.

Andrew  

[Jereth]

Dear Andrew,

I'm concerned that you may be partly misunderstanding what Jordan said about the Spirit withdrawing from our preaching. Jordan will have to provide his own clarification when he is able, but here's a clarification on what I think.

I believe that the Spirit of God can work through the preaching of his Word even when the conditions are suboptimal (cf. Philippians 1:12-18). When women preach in the church assembly, the Spirit can and does work to impress the truth upon people and change hearts and minds. On the occasions that a lady preaches at St. Judes, I do feel uneasy but at the end of the sermon I can walk away having learnt something or benefited in some way.

The problem is when an unbiblical model of ministry (as we see it) is persistently practised and accepted as the norm. Yes, God can sovereignly override an unhealthy situation to produce benefits, but we believe that over time the destructive effects will eventually outweigh those benefits on a corporate level. We believe that it would far healthier for the church if it followed the model that God has graciously outlined for our benefit in Scripture (which we believe to be the complementarian model).

As to the withdrawal of the Spirit that Jordan speaks, I think this is a hypothesis based on biblical examples where persistent disobedience on the part of his people (especially where that disobedience is deliberate and springs from hardened hearts) moves God to withdraw his blessing from them. I would be extremely hesitant myself to apply this kind of assessment to Melbourne diocese as it presently stands. I personally think that many people are supporting egalitarianism through confusion, naivety, inertia and the "bandwagon" effect and in a great many cases intentional disobedience or hardening is not involved. Nevertheless we should not exclude the possibility that in the future, as egalitarianism gets more entrenched, the situation changes -- which is why we are fighting hard now to restore (what we consider to be) a biblical model.

Jordan, have I represented you accurately mate, or have I completely adulterated your views?

[Jordan]

Andrew Bowles wrote:

Jereth, I perfectly understand that if you believe that having a female bishop would mean that the Holy Spirit would no longer be working through your preaching (which is how I understand Jordan's concern), then you would consider leaving. I disagree with your theology, but I understand the angst.

Hi Andrew,

All I said was, 'I am concerned that God may withhold his blessing from the ministry of the Word.' You might recognize the subjunctive mood

You might also recognize that I left it as a general principle. When we talk about the possibility of God withholding his blessing from the ministry of the Word, we mustn't reduce the idea into some trite formula, such as, 'I'm under a woman bishop, therefore the Holy Spirit won't attend my sermons'.  

I'm simply saying that there's a relationship between obedience to Christ's commands, and fruitfulness in ministry (Jn 15:1-11).

There are several instances in the OT where God withheld blessing, or rather pronounced judgment, because people assumed official ministry positions who weren't supposed to be in those positions (Nu 16, 1 Ki 12:31, 13:33-34). I think we need to take these passages seriously, and affirm that God is not only concerned with what is preached, but also with whether or not the preacher has been lawfully called according to Scripture. Some people take Phil 1:15-18 in isolation and conclude that it really doesn't matter if we wrongly ordain women to certain ministry positions; as long as they preach the gospel, everything will be fine. Those people are evidently unaware of the full biblical picture.

In another post you suggested to Luke that the doctrine of Scripture might be better discussed at one of your whiteboard meetings due to its complexity and the likelihood of misunderstanding arising in a forum like this. I think the present discussion belongs in the same category.

In Christ,

Jordan

[Andrew Bowles]

I agree. Don't think that I misunderstand you, I think we all know the complexity of the issues. It is difficult on an internet forum to say everything that you mean.

andrew

Jordan Hitchcock wrote:

Andrew Bowles wrote:

Jereth, I perfectly understand that if you believe that having a female bishop would mean that the Holy Spirit would no longer be working through your preaching (which is how I understand Jordan's concern), then you would consider leaving. I disagree with your theology, but I understand the angst.

In another post you suggested to Luke that the doctrine of Scripture might be better discussed at one of your whiteboard meetings due to its complexity and the likelihood of misunderstanding arising in a forum like this. I think the present discussion belongs in the same category.

Jordan

[maria BS]

Hi Jereth,

Sorry - you could be forgiven for thinking that I was ignoring you! I had a super busy week last week and this discussion forum doesn't work on my work computer. It's weird as my work computer is much more modern. powerful etc,than my home computer, but for some reason things like this don't seem to work well on the work one. (I am in the process of getting it checked out).

Anyway,
I am glad you spent some time reading books that represent varying opinions,
in terms of your list,
I would add:

I think Discovering Biblical Equality is a v good book, and Fee and others who contribute have other books where they outline their views further.

I find that commentaries written by Fee are helpful for looking at particular texts.
Other books are

Webb, William J. Slaves, Women and Homosexuals, Intervarsity Press: Illinois, 2001, 26-27.
Paul, Women and Wives, Marriage and Women's Ministry in the letters of Paul by C S Keener
Men & Women in the Church: Building Consensus on Christian Leadship By Sarah Sumner

NT Wright has some good stuff and like Fee, his is a reliable Evangelical Biblical Scholar.

http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Women_Service_Church.htm

While I disagree with some of what he writes, I think,
Stott, John. Issues Facing Christians Today,  Zondervan: Michigan, 2006. is worth reading on the topic of women in ministry. I respect Stott's view although I think he contradicts himself.

I think Fee, Wright and Webb stand out
as they are not just people that thought - oh I might write a book on this,
rather they are respected Biblical scholars whose names come up in most first year Evangelical Bible college students' reading lists.

There are other things I have read and I am going to be collecting a resource list in the next little while, so I will pass it one when I have compiled it.

GOd Bless,
Maria

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

[Jereth]

Thank you Maria. I'll try and read Keener and Wright if I get an opportunity. I might give Sumner a miss, seeing as even the authors of Discovering Biblical Equality say she has a weak/confusing position.

I have read Webb's chapters in DBE, which are a condensed version of his thesis in SW&H. I found his arguments objectionable. I think that Webb's "redemptive movement hermeneutic" is flawed and dangerous, and undermines the authority of Scripture. His whole method starts with his personal, subjective feeling that there are (quote) "not so pretty" teachings in the Bible; ergo they must be tainted by sinful ancient culture; ergo they must be surpassed and overridden by our modern enlightened culture. It is abundantly clear that the reason why he thinks there are "not so pretty" parts in the Bible is because his authority is modern culture, not Scripture. He should be reforming modern culture by Scripture, not vice versa! And in any case Webb makes it very clear that, in his theory, our ethical standard is not the literal text of Scripture itself, but the "spirit" that one must perceive to lie behind the text. His views can't be responsibly commended to bible-believing evangelicals.

As I said, I found that DBE varied greatly depending on the authors. Fee's chapters were good quality and almost persuasive (especially his one on Galatians). Several other chapters were just wishy washy and plain unconvincing. A couple chapters (most memorably a chapter by Aida Bescanson Spencer) were, in my opinion, totally wrong, sometimes dangerously so. So while DBE certainly is a very thorough and systematic presentation of the Egalitarian case, and is well worth reading, it is not persuasive.

My view is that, if Egalitarianism is to present a convincing case to the Church, it has a lot of work to do sorting the wheat from the chaff -- the few good arguments are soiled by dozens of shocking ones. To give another example: in all my reading of egalitarian literature, I have come across perhaps a dozen different (often mutually incompatible) "interpretations" that invalidate 1 Timothy 2:11-14. Clearly this is a wild scatter gun approach. The whole system still appears incoherent to me, and therefore I think I'm going to be a complementarian for some time yet!

cheers, Jereth