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

[Tim Patrick]

G'day Andrew and Phil,

Couple of things

Andrew Moody wrote:

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.

Is this anywhere in writing? I presume synod is minuted. Can we get hold of the minutes?

I'm surprised to hear that there was again something said on the synod floor that hasn't been carried through given the response to when that happened with the budget. If this assurance was given (I honestly don't remember that degree of detail), then we should call them on it.

Phil Gale wrote:

The ABp's GUIDELINES for Provision for those who are unable to accept the Episcopal Ministry of a Bishop who is a Woman

Can you please let us know where this document is available?

Thanks, Tim

[Andrew Moody]

Tim Patrick wrote:

Is this anywhere in writing? I presume synod is minuted. Can we get hold of the minutes?
I'm surprised to hear that there was again something said on the synod floor that hasn't been carried through given the response to when that happened with the budget. If this assurance was given (I honestly don't remember that degree of detail), then we should call them on it.

You are making me doubt my own memory here. (I wonder whether I am reading Richard Trist's comments as a gloss on the bill). I haven't been able to find my copy of the proposed bills - but that might shed some light.

Tim Patrick wrote:

Phil Gale wrote:

The ABp's GUIDELINES for Provision for those who are unable to accept the Episcopal Ministry of a Bishop who is a Woman

Can you please let us know where this document is available?

Is this it here: http://www.anglican.org.au/docs/BISH080410PrototcolWomenBishops.pdf

Reading it. I suspect there is enough vaguery there to allow the new protocol - but I find it hard to see that this part has been honoured: "...those who hold either conviction will continue to have a valued and respected place in this Church" Clearly one position is less valuable.

[Phil Gale]

Regardless of whether the assurance is written down, there was reference to relying protocols to be developed at the April Bishops' Conference.
I don't think the Melbourne May protocol is in step with the Bishops' Conference April agreement that the diocesan bishop provide for appropriate episcopal ministry to be given every member of the church regardless of their thinking on women bishops. Clergy in parishes with less than 2/3 opposed to female episcopacy are left out on a limb. Also the requirement to pay for the services of a male bishop ( - if it is in addition to the normal assessment costs) in place of those of a female is an added tax on one group & therefore discriminatory. I've written to TMA's editor on these aspects. Will be interested to see if it gets published.

[Tim Patrick]

Andrew Moody wrote:

You are making me doubt my own memory here. (I wonder whether I am reading Richard Trist's comments as a gloss on the bill). I haven't been able to find my copy of the proposed bills - but that might shed some light.

The 2007 Order of Business only asks that protocols be drafted for those who cannot in conscience accept the ministry of women bishops. It doesn't specify whether 'those' is clergy or congregations. This doesn't mean something wasn't said specifically about clergy on the synod floor. However, it does mean that it's not part of a passed motion.

Is this it here: http://www.anglican.org.au/docs/BISH080410PrototcolWomenBishops.pdf

I have this one already. But Phil's just emailed me what I'm looking for. I've pasted it below.

GUIDELINES for Provision for those who are unable to accept the Episcopal Ministry of a Bishop who is a Woman.

At all times while there is a Bishop of the Diocese of Melbourne who is a woman the Archbishop, with the support of the Council of the Diocese, will ensure that the ministry of a Bishop who is a man will be available for those who, for various reasons and varying degrees, are unable to accept the Episcopal ministry of a Bishop who is a woman.

Confirmation:
Where a Bishop who is a woman is the confirming Bishop, a person who as a matter of conscience cannot accept confirmation from a Bishop who is a woman will be confirmed by a Bishop who is a man.

Ordination:
Where a Bishop who is a woman is the ordaining Bishop, a person who as a matter of conscience cannot accept ordination from a Bishop who is a woman will be ordained by a Bishop who is a man.

In a Parish:
These arrangements will be available where the vestry, with the consent both of the Incumbent or the Priest in Charge and a two thirds majority of the electors present at a specially convened meeting in accordance with the Parishes Act and chaired by the Archdeacon, applies in writing to the Archbishop to receive Episcopal ministry only from a Bishop who is a man.  The implementation of these arrangements will be available for a period of three years from the date of the request and will be renewable by the same means.  The same process will be used if the decision is to be revoked within the period of three years.

Costs:
Determination of reasonable reimbursement for any expenses incurred in implementing these arrangements will be made by the Archbishop.

The Archbishop will advise the Council of the Diocese annually of the application of these arrangements.  The Archbishop is the point of reference in any disputes over matters of discipline or of pastoral succession, as they relate to the ministry of a Bishop who is a woman.  The Archbishop may delegate this role as the need arises.

The Archbishop will initiate a review of these guidelines and report to the Council on the appropriateness of these guidelines after they have been operational for eighteen months.

This is new information. It's quite particular in what it requires for alternative oversight at the parish level and some might argue that the criteria it calls for could make it practically quite difficult to ask for AO. Having said that, I guess you don't want to make it too easy for parishes to change bishops - this would make the whole system of episcopal oversight somewhat less meaningful.

Does anyone know who prepared this?

[Tim Patrick]

Phil Gale wrote:

I don't think the Melbourne May protocol is in step with the Bishops' Conference April agreement that the diocesan bishop provide for appropriate episcopal ministry to be given every member of the church regardless of their thinking on women bishops.

If there's a conflict between the all-Aus Bishop's protocol and the Melbourne protocol, then I think there's a valid case to be argued.

[Jereth]

Phil,

I'm not too happy about these provisions either.

- incumbent must consent
- vestry must agree
- 2/3 majority of "electors" must consent
- special meeting must be held, chaired by the Archdeacon, at which vote is taken
- parish must cover all costs
- process must be repeated every 3 years

Sounds like an impossibly high hurdle to me -- more like a deterrent than "protection". As you say, it does not protect clergy unless most of their parish agree with them, and go through the whole process of convening the special meeting, etc.

What concerns me as well is that most complementarians (i.e. objectors to female episcopal oversight) are spread out across the diocese in different parishes, where they will most likely be outnumbered 2 to 1 (if not by significantly more) rather than vice versa. so I don't really see how anyone will be guaranteed "protection" under these provisions. Perhaps a couple of anglo-catholic parishes will go ahead with it, but I seriously doubt we'll see any evangelical parishes make use of the provisions. Anyone who disagrees with the system will become an oppressed minority.

What do they expect us to do - go to Sydney and ask them to provide us with alternative oversight ?!?

Seriously now, I think there's only 2 options for people who object to women bishops. Either (1) they accept what has been dealt out and remain in their parishes even under female oversight -- i.e. be bullied into submission. Or (2) we leave our parishes which are under female oversight, congregate in 1 or 2 parishes where we know the Vicar agrees with us, and where we'll be in the required 2/3 majority, and then apply for the provision. Drastic and divisive... but that's all they've really left us with.

Jereth

[Gordon Cheng]

Jereth wrote:

Seriously now, I think there's only 2 options for people who object to women bishops. Either (1) they accept what has been dealt out and remain in their parishes even under female oversight -- i.e. be bullied into submission. Or (2) we leave our parishes which are under female oversight, congregate in 1 or 2 parishes where we know the Vicar agrees with us, and where we'll be in the required 2/3 majority, and then apply for the provision. Drastic and divisive... but that's all they've really left us with.

Jereth

[hey this works on Firefox now! As well as Opera. Nothing to do with me]

Jereth, I think this is right, except that the oversight of a congregation comes from the vicar and other elders, not from a bishop, who will visit once a year—less if you play your cards right.

So you could still have a female bishop and remain in a local church without going against your conscience, if you accept the view that the bishop is there as an administrator at the diocesan level.

Nonetheless, the few complementarian evangelicals that are there in the dio have been, politically speaking, done like a dinner on this one. And it will get harder, not easier as far as the denomination goes.

My suggestion would be that if the local church is faithful on the subject of women in ministry, to stay part of the denominational structure until booted out, unless you can't bear it. Speaking personally, if we were still in Melbourne I would be attending Holy Trinity Doncaster and hanging on for dear life, helping Paul B in whatever way I could. Although turning up at Scots Presbyterian in the city, especially with my mate Johnny Diacos there, and also Steve Williams, would be looking very tempting I can tell you.

But if I were a complementarian evangelical, there is no way I would look to the local theological colleges for support. Their positions have been made abundantly clear, and they are not neutral.

[edit: By the way, if you see that my posts are rated above average, think nothing of it. It's just a little insurance policy by me in case the earlier person starts rating my posts as spam again ;-) ]

[Tim Patrick]

Gordon Cheng wrote:

Speaking personally, if we were still in Melbourne I would be attending Holy Trinity Doncaster and hanging on for dear life, helping Paul B in whatever way I could.

G'day Gordon,

I also love HTD - had a great year there during my training at college. Paul is a brilliant minister and it's fantastic to have people like Andrew Moody around too. Praise God for that parish.

One thing I must say though - I'm somewhat surprised at this recommendation coming from you given that in recent years HTD has employed at least two female priests (in the Anglican sense). I would have guessed that this wouldn't sit at all well with you and yet you still strongly endorse this church. I suppose it might depend on exactly what their roles in the parish were and I can't say I know that level of detail. Please enlighten us with your thinking on this one.

Tim

[Gordon Cheng]

It doesn't sit well with me, Tim.

My personal belief—that Paul Barker is just about the best clergy asset that Melbourne Anglicans have—means that my commitment to the gospel ministry that he is leading would turn disagreement over this into a second order issue in this instance. He would be the sole exception to this. Fiona and I actually attended HTD from 1996 to 1999, and there was occasional preaching from the female minister there.

If you are confident in the leadership of a congregation, you live with stuff that you feel uncomfortable with and discuss it as graciously as you can when you have opportunity.

If I ever returned to Melbourne (and I have no plans to) it would be one of the factors I would have to weigh up, and would push me in the direction of the Presbyterians.

One of the results of this latest decision is that complementarian evangelicals who had trained at Moore would think twice, or not at all, before accepting leadership within an Anglican church in Melbourne. In my view, that cuts out most of the best ministry candidates from Moore from involvement in Anglican churches in Melbourne. Given the choice between tricky questions of conscience vs going Presbyterian, Baptist, CoC, independent or AFES, it's a no-brainer.

[edit: a further thought] Cutting out complementarian evangelicals by cutting them off at the source won't bother most Melbourne Anglicans, in fact they will most likely rejoice in the peace that will ensue. But if I was there on the ground, and tended towards a conservative theological view, I would be deeply dismayed by the latest developments and probably looking for a parachute into a friendlier denomination, or into independent church planting.

[Tim Patrick]

Gordon Cheng wrote:

My personal belief—that Paul Barker is just about the best clergy asset that Melbourne Anglicans have—means that my commitment to the gospel ministry that he is leading would turn disagreement over this into a second order issue in this instance. He would be the sole exception to this. Fiona and I actually attended HTD from 1996 to 1999, and there was occasional preaching from the female minister there.

If you are confident in the leadership of a congregation, you live with stuff that you feel uncomfortable with and discuss it as graciously as you can when you have opportunity.

Thanks so much for this Gordon. It's really very encouraging for me.

I think that what you've written here captures a whole lot of what's going on for a whole lot of Melbourne evangelical Anglicans. Sometimes our commitment to the gospel ministry being led by various ministers turns some disagreements into second order issues. If you are confident in the leadership of a congregation, you live with stuff that you feel uncomfortable with and discuss it as graciously as you can when you have the opportunity. Yup, I think I'm pretty confident to say that I can agree with all that without qualification. Brilliant.

You've managed to communicate the operating position of many Melbourne evangelical Anglicans in a way that we just don't seem to have been able to. It's good to be understood. For the second time in my life I'm tempted to use one of those kitsch little smiley things that people use in these sorts of forums... no, I can still resist!

Cheers, Tim

[Andrew Stagg]

Yeah - I too read those guidelines and they are very poor indeed. They appear to have been carefully designed to make it impossible for anyone to ask for episcopal oversight in practice.

"We listened to your concerns but you don't meet the rules (which we made up) and you don't qualify. Please return to your box and stop making a fuss."

Three rules are especially impressive
- the rule that resets everything after three years - so that even if my some absolute miracle you convince everyone and the dog at your church to support episcopal oversight it evaporates completely in three years  and you have to go through the entire process all over again.
- the rule that seems to say (I admit I don't fully understand this one) that you have to pay the diocese a nuisance fee because you would prefer to remain faithful to scripture.
- and the rule that says that in eighteen months time the bishops get to review all the rules and recommend whatever they like (no guesses as to what they are going to recommend).

This entire female bishop ordination in melbourne has been a complete joke. In all the arguments for it I've not seen one piece of scripture that supports it presented by the diocese. I've seen scripture that clearly prohibits this ordination blatently ignored.  I've read a vast amount of rubbish about how 'its time', 'this is about justice for women' - and - this one especially amazes me - people prattling on about how God is good because he has 'allowed' this ordination to happen. Clearly Anglicans in Melbourne now have authority to define what good is and God just has to conform.

When did things go so completely upside down???

[Jereth]

Hi Gordo,

Gordon Cheng wrote:

Jereth, I think this is right, except that the oversight of a congregation comes from the vicar and other elders, not from a bishop, who will visit once a year—less if you play your cards right.

So you could still have a female bishop and remain in a local church without going against your conscience, if you accept the view that the bishop is there as an administrator at the diocesan level.

There might possibly be something to this view, except that the "bishops is just an administrator" argument seems like something of a cop out. Is not the bishop a pastor? And do they not exercise spiritual authority? Therefore, a female bishop still goes against 1 Timothy 2:11-14 in my view. Let's not play word games!!

Also, here's what a clergy friend of mine argues: as clergy they have sworn an oath to uphold the threefold order of bishop, priest and deacon. What is my (priest) friend to do when he can no longer uphold the order of bishop because it is occupied by someone who is not fit to occupy it? He must either ignore her authority over him, thus breaking his ordination vows, or accept her authority against his conscience. Either way he compromises his personal integrity. It is a no win situation for all Melbourne priests and deacons of complementarian convictions.

My suggestion would be that if the local church is faithful on the subject of women in ministry, to stay part of the denominational structure until booted out, unless you can't bear it.

Unfortunately "can't bear it" is a bit of an issue for my wife and I. The problem is not just that people are teaching the wrong thing about men and women; nor that people are avoiding the whole issue and teaching nothing. It is that they are not teaching the right thing. And we want to be taught the right thing! When we listened to CC Hawthorn's online sermon series on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, our reaction was: "This has been missing from our lives for the last 5 years! We want it back!" We are spiritually hungering, starving, for the truth, and its absence (let alone all the incorrect teaching) is unbearable.

Last week we attended a wedding of one of our goods friends. They chose 1 Peter 3:1-7 as their reading and sermon passage. We were terribly upset when preacher explained it away as cultural and evangelistic, and ultimately dodged the application of the specific commands to husbands and wives today. Again, unbearable!

Speaking personally, if we were still in Melbourne I would be attending Holy Trinity Doncaster and hanging on for dear life, helping Paul B in whatever way I could.

Indeed, currently we stay at St. Judes because Richard Condie has a view which is tolerable for us: he believes that males should hold ultimate authority over a church, although females may preach "under" male authority.  (Richard expressed this view in a sermon 2-3 years ago).  And practically speaking it is quite rare that a woman actually does preach at St. Judes. Furthermore, we respect Richard as a leader and teacher. So yes, it is possible to stay -- but there is also a breaking point, and female bishops brings that one step closer.

But if I were a complementarian evangelical, there is no way I would look to the local theological colleges for support. Their positions have been made abundantly clear, and they are not neutral.

Yes I agree, Ridley was a hard place to be -- in fact, I was not bothered about this issue until I went to Ridley in 2007. I was one of a small bunch of guys who had to regularly abstain from chapel because of female preachers. However, I understand that Ridley is gradually shifting towards a position that is more tolerant and supportive of complementarians at least in principle, if not in practice, and for that I'm thankful.

One of the results of this latest decision is that complementarian evangelicals who had trained at Moore would think twice, or not at all, before accepting leadership within an Anglican church in Melbourne. In my view, that cuts out most of the best ministry candidates from Moore from involvement in Anglican churches in Melbourne.

Exactly. A friend of mine attends a parish which is led by a Moore graduate. This chap has reportedly told my friend that if a female bishop is put over him he will have to return to Sydney!

But if I was there on the ground, and tended towards a conservative theological view, I would be deeply dismayed by the latest developments

Dismayed we are!!!

Jereth

[Jereth]

andrew stagg wrote:

This entire female bishop ordination in melbourne has been a complete joke. In all the arguments for it I've not seen one piece of scripture that supports it presented by the diocese. I've seen scripture that clearly prohibits this ordination blatently ignored.  I've read a vast amount of rubbish about how 'its time', 'this is about justice for women' - and - this one especially amazes me - people prattling on about how God is good because he has 'allowed' this ordination to happen. Clearly Anglicans in Melbourne now have authority to define what good is and God just has to conform.

hear hear, brother

[Andrew Moody]

Andrew Moody wrote:

...I hope my egalitarian evangelical brothers and sisters are as disturbed as I am to see that this well-intentioned development shaped into something that looks like fratricide-by-attrition.

Just feel free to respond to this any time guys.

[Luke Isham]

I'll respond although I'm not an egalitarian.  I'm disappointed by the difference between the Bishop's protocol circulated prior to Barbra's appointment and the guidelines published by TMA.  The guidlines seems to leave no allowance for clergy who are complimentarian but working in a Parish with a less then two thirds majority of parishioners willing to support AEO.

[Jereth]

I think we need to analyse this carefully. Here is what A BILL FOR A CHURCH LAW (FURTHER CLARIFICATION) CANON 2004 says:

(a) provision for episcopal ministry for a parish the vestry or council of which–
(i) with the consent of the incumbent; and
(ii) with the consent of a majority of the electors given in a manner specified in the arrangements–
requests such ministry from a bishop who is a man on the ground that there are parishioners of that parish whose consciences preclude them from accepting the ministry of a bishop who is a woman, which provision for such ministry shall continue until the vestry or council, with the consent of the incumbent and a majority of the electors given in a manner specified in the arrangements, determines that it is no longer required;

It seems to me that Melbourne's protocol conforms to this Canon at one point, is questionable at one point, and directly contravenes it at one point.

"consent of the incumbent" - this is adhered to correctly

"consent of a majority of the electors" - the canon doesn't specify by what kind of majority; a majority could be a 51% majority but Melbourne has decided a 2/3 majority is necessary

"which provision... shall continue until the vestry or council... determines that it is no longer required" - Melbourne's protocol contravenes this because of the 3-year reset

On the matter of what happens to clergy who object to a female bishop but can't get a majority of their parish to agree with them, I can't find anything. Perhaps the church just hasn't addressed this problem yet.

We should also try to find out what sort of provisions are being made in Perth, and compare those with what Melbourne is offering.

[Gordon Cheng]

Andrew Moody wrote:

Andrew Moody wrote:

...I hope my egalitarian evangelical brothers and sisters are as disturbed as I am to see that this well-intentioned development shaped into something that looks like fratricide-by-attrition.

Just feel free to respond to this any time guys.

I like this.

Polite but persistent.

One to keep returning to.

[Danny Saunders]

Gordon wrote:

"But if I was there on the ground, and tended towards a conservative theological view, I would be deeply dismayed by the latest developments and probably looking for a parachute into a friendlier denomination, or into independent church planting."

Do you know where one could get funding for this sort of thing? The northern kingdom isn't looking to extend into Mexico perhaps?

[Jereth]

Danny Saunders wrote:

Do you know where one could get funding for this sort of thing? The northern kingdom isn't looking to extend into Mexico perhaps?

We wish.

Though if Melbourne isn't going to provide conservative clergy with adequate episcopal oversight to protect their consciences (and perhaps their employment), who knows? Adequate episcopal oversight might have to come from somewhere else.

Interestingly, this issue is causing England their own share of strife.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/17/anglicanism.religion1
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4144508.ece

[Jenny George-2]

Andrew Moody wrote:

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.  [edit: bold by Jenny] 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 brothers and sisters are as disturbed as I am to see that this well-intentioned development shaped into something that looks like fratricide-by-attrition. What were we saying about diversity again?

Andrew - didn't realise you needed a response to the last paragraph (sounded more rhetorical to me). But since I guess I'm one of the few egalitarians on here then - yes - I am worried about the way these protocols have been worked out. I agree that they make it very difficult for individual clergy whose conscience may drive them towards needing alternative episcopal oversight but whose congregations won't necessarily vote that way. It's unfair and likely to be divisive.

On the sentence that I bolded above, however, I don't know that it's intentionally making conservative clergy a dying breed. Given Tim's legitimate questions about how you safeguard the episcopacy from becoming a "choose your own boss" situation, I think there have to be some protocols and I'd put some probability behind the chance that these are rushed and less than perfectly thought through rather than assuming they are Machievellian. It's possible but not the only explanation.

Sorry it's taken a while to write - am overseas and only just noticed that this hadn't been answered by anyone else.