Melbourne's first female bishop to be consecrated on May 31

[Jereth]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/25/2227439.htm
http://www.livenews.com.au/Articles/2008/04/25/Victoria_appoints_first_woman_bishop_Canon_Barbara_Darling

Funny this would be announced on Anzac day eh?

[jwhkuan]

Archbishop Philip Freier released this statement last night to his clergy:
>>
Assistant Bishop
It is with much pleasure that I announce that the Revd Canon Barbara Darling has been appointed as the next Assistant Bishop for the Diocese of Melbourne.  Her initial role will be that of Bishop for Diocesan Ministries. She will bring a wealth of experience from her years of ministry, both lay and clerical.  Barbara is currently the Vicar of St James’ Dandenong; she is an Examining Chaplain, the Senior Canon of St Paul’s Cathedral and currently the chair of the Dean Search Committee.  She has been the Chairperson of the Ordained Women’s Group, a lecturer at Ridley Melbourne, a member of Archbishop in Council, a representative to the General Synod and a member of the Victorian Council of Christian Education.  I look forward to her Consecration at 11.00 am on Saturday 31 May and to being able to warmly welcome her to the Episcopate team of the Diocese of Melbourne.  I am further delighted to recognise the historic nature of the appointment of this, the first woman bishop in the Diocese of Melbourne and the second in Australia.
<<

[Matt Williams]

What a fantastic appointment. I can't say how pleased I am. Canon Darling's personal qualities and experience are such that no-one could reasonably portray this as tokenism or even positive discrimination - if a man had her CV he would be an obvious choice for Bishop.

Since the initial appointment does not include oversight of a region, I take it Abp Freier has also bought time regarding how alternative oversight provisions will work in Melbourne, which seems wise to me.

[Tim Patrick]

Perhaps something that really needs our immediate attention is this kind of comment - posted in response to one of the articles that Jereth linked us to.

__
Does anybody care about this? Anglicanism is in decline in this country, compared to other religious groups. Even if we got a female archbishop or female catholic pope, what difference would it really make? Religions are out of touch with today's problems and have falling memberships.
Posted by: Dirk Irfing, auburn
__


For me, this is the business end of the problems in Anglicanism. Does someone want to start a thread on the difference that Anglicanism should try to make in Melbourne for people who perceive us this way?!? This is the hard, honest, urgent conversation that we need to have!

TP

[Jereth]

Tim Patrick wrote:

Does anybody care about this? Anglicanism is in decline in this country, compared to other religious groups. Even if we got a female archbishop or female catholic pope, what difference would it really make? Religions are out of touch with today's problems and have falling memberships.
Posted by: Dirk Irfing, auburn
__

For me, this is the business end of the problems in Anglicanism. Does someone want to start a thread on the difference that Anglicanism should try to make in Melbourne for people who perceive us this way?!? This is the hard, honest, urgent conversation that we need to have!

Hmm, well here's an interesting commentary that Rachel and I listened to last night... in fact, it is part of the introduction to a 10-sermon series preached in an inner city Melbourne Anglican church last year. (We were both deeply moved by listening to the first sermon...)


"As our society has moved to a kind of gender-neutral, nihilist construction of humanity, the church in the developing world, the strategy the church has adopted, particularly the mainline established churches, is to say this: Well, we need to be relevant to our culture; times have changed, and we need to connect. So the big promise has been, politically in the church: that if only we abandon the patriarchal understanding of the past, and we too embrace a gender-neutral view of the way the church works, then this will see a new flowering of effectiveness, and fruitfulness, and evangelism, and mission, and influencing and shaping the culture.

"That has not worked! It has been a spectacular failure! To the extent that the Church has bought into that particular spirit of the age, we have actually seen, in the cultures where this has happened, an accelerated decline in the church. It has not worked. As we have accommodated to the culture at this point, we've seen this great decline. And this got me thinking... What we've seen over the last 50 or 60 years is the rapid feminisation of the church. We've seen the church become increasingly a place where it's really women and children who are at the centre of church life; and the church is organised for women and children, run for women and children, the church buildings are built for women and children, they're decorated for women and children [...] the worship music is for women and children... And what we've experienced then, is across Australia for example, the demographic split in churches is 60% women and 40% men. And the men who attend don't tend to be very involved. They just attend because they've been dragged along by the women and children.

"As missionaries in a culture, it is a truism that when you fail to reach the men of a culture, you fail to reach the culture, for better or worse. It's great to reach women and children -- I'm big on reaching women and children! But it is true that in the history of the church, when the church fails to reach the men of the culture, you fail to reach the culture. And we want to reach this culture to change it, so that it becomes all that God wants it to be, so that people are blessed, they're set free, they're healed, they're saved. Which means we need to reach the men."


Thoughts anyone?

[Matt Williams]

Well, my initial thought is that it looks like someone has been drinking water imported from Seattle, and couldn't quite keep it down...

[NICK C. BACALLA]

April 26, 2008

   It is God who calls a person to do his work on earth, not man. When a man becomes an ordained priest, minister, or preacher he receives indirectly from God the commission to do his work of saving immortal souls. If these are not saved, nothing is saved!

   The one who ordains must have the unmistakeable authority to do so, or the ordination is not valid at all. It will just be an empty ceremony without meaning.

   The apostles started this tradition of ordination to help them in the work our Lord Jesus Christ told them to do. All the present ordinations that the Catholic Church practices have their connections to the apostles. I don't know where the other ordinations come from. Yet the Church tolerates them because they are not harming the immortal souls that our Lord has saved.

    In imitation of our Lord's own life, the primitive Church ordained only men. But it is not contradicitng our Lord's command if women were also ordained as long as God calls them.

    Since the Church was commissioned by our Lord to " if you forgive men's sins, they are forgiven them; if you hold them bound they are held bound,(John 22-23), she received the power to forgive sins that damn people to hell. It would not make sense if only those people in the time of the apostles would benefit from this special kind of forgiveness and not for all men of all time. The practice of the apostles indicates that this power of forgiving sins also includes all men. In Matthew 28:18-20, our Lord clearly announces: "Full authority has been given to me both in heaven and on earth, Go, therefor, and make disciples of all the nations. Baptize them in the name 'of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit'. Teach them to carry out everything I have commanded you. And know that I am with you always until the end of the world." That is the reason why the apostles ordained chosen men to continue their work after them.

    Only the Catholic Church has this power to ordain. She established the seminaries to prepare men for ordination. If one feels that God is calling him, he must pass through the seminary to assess this call. Only then will the ordained priest, minister or preacher be able to help in the salvation of immortal souls. And he should be a really good help and not a hindrance by bad examples.

Nick C. Bacalla

[jwhkuan]

now now matthew, please behave :)

tim and jereth, it might be better if we start a separate thread on this topic.  

[Matt Williams]

hehe, sorry WHK, flippant mood. But actually a poor substitute for what I was really thinking, which even after sleeping on it I think still needs to be said.

I was disappointed in the direction Tim and Jereth took this thread. Of course it is an important question to be asking at all times, and I love and admire that they are thinking constantly and enthusiastically about evangelism. But as a first response to the appointment of Canon Darling as bishop?

For many - yes not all, but many - Melbourne Anglicans, this is a long overdue expression of the dignity God has given women through the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is unhelpful to imply there is no time to celebrate that because a non-Christian man said he didn't care. Of course many may not, but they don't care less because we have women bishops either. And some people might, in the end, care more for a church that practices treating women with the same dignity as men.

But more than that, surely people within the church already matter at least as much to God? Many of those now feel that they need no longer be embarrassed that their church is doing a worse job than secular society of seeing women as God sees them.

The irrelevance of the church to outsiders is an ongoing issue, which must always concern us. To say 'whatever' and re-raise that question is not, however, an appropriate immediate response to every reform the church makes within itself. It is worth taking the time to be delighted about those.

To take it out of an issue about which we disagree, when the church finally reformed its protocols to better discipline offenders and take care of victims of sexual abuse, did you think we should immediately shift the conversation to 'but what about the people who don't care'? Or was there an appropriate season to reflect on the impact of that repentance for people who do care both within and outside the church, and for giving thanks that the church has better aligned its practice with the gospel? Surely there always ought to be such a season. The vital importance of evangelism doesn't mean everything else is rendered irrelevant.

Again I understand that not all of us will see this as a better alignment with the gospel, and I don't expect those who don't to start celebrating. And even for those of us who do, it is always important to ensure we are asking those questions about relevance to non-Christian men and women. But there must be seasons for all things, and for those of us who can celebrate it, the season of giving thanks to God for the appointment of Canon Darling ought not be hijacked - least of all with Driscoll-esque rhetoric reinforcing highly questionable gender stereotypes. Shifting the conversation back to evangelism is not always the most godly thing to do. Sometimes you have to let healing and release take hold among the flock we already have.

Obviously the immediate issue has been resolved by Wei-Han moving the new discussion to another thread, but I think still worth saying.

Blessings
Matt

[Jereth]

Uhhh, what has all this got to do with Seattle and Mark Driscoll?? The sermon I quoted was preached in Melbourne at an Anglican church, honest!

Dear brother Matt, please be assured that I didn't quote that sermon to be provocative or rude, or to pour water on your celebration. To me it just seemed to flow on naturally from the question that was asked. (And note I wasn't necessarily backing everything in the quote; I just wanted to put it out there for discussion due to its relevance.) Because complementarians are currently not in a celebratory mood -- for us, Friday's announcement did not transform our world as it did yours -- it did not seem inappropriate at the time to continue the discussion in this direction. However, with the benefit of hindsight I can now see how this may have seemed offensive to celebrating egalitarians, and for that I am sincerely sorry and ask your forgiveness.

Yes, lets pick this up at a different time and place.

cheers, Jereth

[Tim Patrick]

Matt Williams wrote:

I was disappointed in the direction Tim and Jereth took this thread. Of course it is an important question to be asking at all times, and I love and admire that they are thinking constantly and enthusiastically about evangelism. But as a first response to the appointment of Canon Darling as bishop?

Hey Matt,

I hadn't actually even thought of my comment in the vein that it seems to have been received (let that be a lesson to all of us!) I simply wanted to flag that while this may be a significant moment for us, the world that we're supposed to exist for is often not all that interested in the things that regularly consume our attention.

This probably does betray my evangelistic bent and so I do take the point well that not everything is about evangelism - it's good to be reminded that there certainly is a time for celebration, as there is for all things. But again, my post was not meant to be a deflection, but just an attempt to note some of the other things we'll need to get on with thinking about as we look towards the future of our church.

TP

[Matt Williams]

Hey Jereth & Tim,

No worries, I certainly didn't imagine either of you meant to be provocative or rude. That's why I felt it was worth pointing out that it would be heard that way. So yes, of course I forgive you!

Blessings
Matt

P.S. I know where and when it was preached - got it first guess (just on reputation, I've never met him)!! What the quote has to do with Driscoll is that it mirrors both his style and his content. Apart from that, nothing!

[maria BS]

Yes, I too think this is a wonderful appointment.
(sorry for my disappearance from this site in the middle of a discussion - busy week plus computer problems)

I think it's great that Abp Freier has appointed someone to such a position - it is really needed! (I admit I am biased - I think Chaplaincy is so important as we seek to share the good news of Jesus).

I have been praying about this and I was so excited to see such a great answer to my prayer. I was really praying that only someone who dearly loved God and his people and was truly gifted and called for the role of Bishop would be appointed next, irrespective of gender. And now Melbourne's first woman bishop has not been appointed as a token, but rather someone who is truly gifted for this role and loves God and his people.... and his word (!)
So I am deeply thankful to God for the appointment of Canon Darling as the first woman Bishop in Melbourne.

Matt Williams wrote:

What a fantastic appointment. I can't say how pleased I am. Canon Darling's personal qualities and experience are such that no-one could reasonably portray this as tokenism or even positive discrimination - if a man had her CV he would be an obvious choice for Bishop.

Since the initial appointment does not include oversight of a region, I take it Abp Freier has also bought time regarding how alternative oversight provisions will work in Melbourne, which seems wise to me.

[Jereth]

Interesting to see how the UK church is going about this.

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=8152

Can you believe it -- it may be 2014 by the time the UK gets a female bishop!

[Gordon Cheng]

Hi all,

thanks for this discussion forum*, and thanks also to friends who have dropped in to the Sydney Anglican forum to offer an opinion.

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.

Regards,

Gordon


*I got this forum to work on Opera. When I've tried to get on using the latest Safari, and Firefox, the font size is miniscule (as in font size 1). Just thought I'd mention for the benefit of tech-heads.

[Gordon Cheng]

By the way, I was slightly concerned to discover that a forum participant had apparently rated my previous post as 'spam', thus causing it to drop temporarily from sight in the summary of discussion. (Confession—I brought it back by giving it a single high rating). Possibly this came about because of the link to the Sydney Anglican forum.

However, my understanding of blog and forum protocol generally is that linking to other discussions is common practice, and is acceptable provided it is relevant and not mistaken for advertising. Indeed, I see that there is a link within that same Sydney Anglican discussion that leads back to these forums.

Nevertheless, I apologize for any inadvertent offence.

Regards and best wishes,

Gordon

[Andrew Stagg]

*I got this forum to work on Opera. When I've tried to get on using the latest Safari, and Firefox, the font size is miniscule (as in font size 1). Just thought I'd mention for the benefit of tech-heads.

Try hitting CNTRL + (ie the numberpad plus) . This usually works on bad font sizing in both Firefox and Opera. Btw I'm using Firefox so it should work.

[Phil Gale]

The ABp's GUIDELINES for Provision for those who are unable to accept the Episcopal Ministry of a Bishop who is a Woman  provide for a male bishop for individuals who are being confirmed or ordained. Parishes that have the vicar / priest-in-charge and 2/3 electors unable to accept a female bishop's ministry will be given a male alternate, with the arrangement to be renewable every three years.
In each case the ABp will determine reasonable reimbursement for provision of these arrangements. Is this just or discriminatory?
There doesn't appear to be any provision for clergy who cannot accept female episcopacy but who are in parishes where the vestry and a 2/3 majority of electors don't share their view. Is this that a lack of foresight in the Guidelines or just a sad omission?
What are the solutions for those clergy? For example I'm opposed to women bishops, but am in a parish that probably wouldn't have 2/3 electors opposed. If Stephen Hale died tomorrow and a female bishop took his place, how do I in good conscience continue to serve in that arrangement?
Phil Gale

[Andrew Moody]

This is an extremely imprtant point, Phil.
We were assured at the vote on women in the episcopate that clergy who wished to apply for alternative oversight would be able to do so. But that is not what this protocol offers - rather it allows parishes to apply for alternative oversight. Those ministers who wish to hold to the standards of the Bible and 2000 years of church tradition must go cap-in-hand to their own congregations and, as long as not more than 34% don't dislike the idea, they can then make the application - and pay a small fine for the privilege.

It is clear that this is intended to make conservative and traditionalist clergy a second- (and dying) class. Under this system, no conservative evangelical (such as some of the most senior evangelical clergy in Menbourne) would ever be able to take over and reform a more liberal parish where there is a female bishop in charge since the parish would never agree to it. I hope my egalitarian evangelical broth