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

[Andrew Moody]

Jenny George wrote:

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.

Hooray! Thanks Jenny. I was beginning to fear that the "better wrong on women but right on the gospel" deal was a one way street.
Choose your own boss? Sounds cool to me.
They're all Anglican bishops, right, so where's the bad? ;-) (this one's rhetorical)

[Gordon Cheng]

Danny Saunders wrote:

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?

Sure, why not?

The only rule to remember is, there is no money. (It's a variation on a rule I've always lived by, which is, 'There is no cavalry—so, don't look over your shoulder, because all you will see is the dust of retreating reinforcements!' ;-)

But you are better off getting courageous men who trust God to lead this, than any amount of subsidized government or non-government funding.

I think what you need here is a local man who will plant a church and, if he feels it will be of benefit to him and the people he is leading as he serves the Lord Jesus, he should approach someone who will give some structural backing to him.

[edit: oops, pushed a button I didn't mean to.

So the first thing I would do in such a situation would be to look for a local Melbourne sponsor, if you felt you needed one. Maybe there would be a Presbyterian who would stick their neck out for you, but if you wanted an Anglican to support your cause, well this list is pretty short and you probably know it better than me. Mind you, the Anglican who does this in Melbourne will draw the full wrath of a lawyered up Melbourne diocese, so he will need to be a faithful man who trusts Jesus and can bear a fair bit of pain for himself and his family.

What an exciting thing to be a part of, though! My hope and prayer is that as Anglicanism restructures, this sort of local initiative will become easier. But it needs to be locally led, really. Missionaries into Melbourne can help but they shouldn't be running the show permanently.

[Tim Patrick]

G'day Jenny and all,

Jenny George wrote:

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.

Thanks for this. It's great and healthy for us all to see that it's possible to hold an egalitarian position without necessarily being pleased about the way that position is being secured in a particular place at a particular time. There's some good integrity here.

I want to stir the pot with a simiar thought but from the other side of the fence.  As a complimentarian myself, I'm not particularly inspired by the way that the complimentarian complaints are being presented at the moment - both in this forum and in other places too.

I would have thought that when a complimentarian finds an egalitarian line is being pushed in their diocese, they are faced with two ways to live. They can either a) Make their objections clear and then get on with the hard work of building the church that they're a part of, seeking it's ongoing reform and renewal and it's return to gospel purity (or however they want to phrase it) or they can b) whinge and sook and continually daydream about running away to some nice, special place where everything's easy and the church is already near-perfect.

I guess I've just found myself a bit surprised to see so many of my complimentarian buddies going for option b). While the complimentarian complaint has often been that Melbourne lacks leadership with the backbone to stand up and fight for what's right, the irony is that the sook-and-run response is itself pretty wimpy.

I reckon if you haven't got the gall for it, you should make your clear public statement and then leave and go and do your good gospel works somewhere else. Don't stay and make a habit of whining. That doesn't help anybody.

On the other hand, why not take up the leadership challenge? Why not try to be that positive force for long-term change instead of just complaining that it's not there? And, despite so many disparaging comments to the contrary, you can do this within Melbourne Anglicanism. There are a good number of significant Melbourne Anglican congregations that are led by complimentarians and that teach a complimentarian line (when it comes up in their expositional preaching that is, not just week by week because they're riding their hobbyhorse). These have only increased in the last decade. We have no reason to think that they're being closed out.

So then, I guess my challenge for the complimentarians is to get on and make a difference. Go forward. The church isn't going to be renewed by you endlessly rehearsing its faults but by you doing something positive in it. Anyone up for that?

Tim

[Andrew Moody]

Fair criticism. Good challenge.
But I note option a is broken into two parts. I think you could argue that we are seeing a1 here. Let's pray it is accompanied by a2.

[Gordon Cheng]

Neither option addresses the excellent possibility of planting new churches.

[Danny Saunders]

Gordon, maybe Tim thinks that 'planting new churches' is part of option b? Is that right Tim, is this a sort of 'grass is always greener syndrome'? Please clarify.

[Stephen Brown]

Hi all, amusing...

Tim Patrick wrote:

I would have thought that when a complimentarian finds an egalitarian line is being pushed in their diocese, they are faced with two ways to live. They can either a) Make their objections clear and then get on with the hard work of building the church that they're a part of, seeking it's ongoing reform and renewal and it's return to gospel purity (or however they want to phrase it) or they can b) whinge and sook and continually daydream about running away to some nice, special place where everything's easy and the church is already near-perfect.

Tim, just come out and tell us all what you really think!

At last, Tim has called our bluff.  I for one welcome that challenge Tim.  But truth is, Complementarians are now in a complete 'leadership' vacuum.  They just aren't represented by anyone!  So I suppose they are simply grasping for anyone to hear their gripe and hopefully help them.  We need to give them some time to adjust to this enormous blow before hammering them about their whining.

I don't think those who take option b) ought to be classified as sooks or whimps, but just desiring to leave a situation where their conscience will not allow them to continue (I mean isn't that the reason our Diocese originally offered AEO to them - so they could stay?).  I think we all need to extend the hand of fellowship to those who leave because of their biblical convictions.  As I'd hope that those who decide to depart would continue to support and encourage those who stay.  

Make objections clear and then just get on with it.   If only it was that easy!  If it were that simple then Complementarians might not even need to make any objections, simply just get on with it as most Evangelicals have done for so long.  It all depends on how much we think Church order matters I suppose.  I for one want to stay and 'get on with it' but this needs to play itself out a little more before we truly know where we all stand...

Until then it may be better to reserve our judgments on those who express their insecurity and anxiety about the innovative decisions our Diocese has made.  







 

[Jereth]

Hi Tim.

Appreciate the challenge. You're absolutely right -- opponents of women's ordination need to be proactive and constructive, and not just a bunch of whingers.

Can I please make a few comments.

Speaking for myself (and no doubt many other complementarians too), I suspect that for much of recent history we have been living option A. That is, we've been well aware that the Anglican church takes an egalitarian policy of ordaining women and allowing them to lead and preach to mixed congregations; and we disagree strongly with this (not to mention the strain it places on our consciences), yet for the sake of peace and harmony we have avoided contention and labored away in our churches with the gospel as our priority. (Those who really couldn't tolerate it probably left not long after 1992)

What has happened in 2008 is that the ordination of a female bishop has upset the status quo. Those who had managed to accommodate to the previous situation, and were practising option A for many years, find themselves thrust out of their comfort zone again and feeling that their place in the church is being seriously threatened. So yes, as you observe, there is now some major complaining (option B) going on. But let's be clear that the provocation has come from the other (egalitarian) side -- we had been doing the right thing. I don't recall a great deal of sooking or whining prior to April 2008.

There are a good number of significant Melbourne Anglican congregations that are led by complimentarians and that teach a complimentarian line... We have no reason to think that they're being closed out.

Would it be possible to name these congregations on this web forum? I ask this because myself and a couple others are wishing to visit some complementarian-led congregations with a view to possibly relocating in the near future. It would help us to know where we can visit! (Aside: if it is possible to name these congregations online, that would also help prove that churches and their leaders can be open and public about being opposed to women's ordination rather than having to live in the closet)

So then, I guess my challenge for the complimentarians is to get on and make a difference. Go forward.

What I'd like to discuss some more is "how?". But I'll leave that for another time

cheers, Jereth

[Gordon Cheng]

Jereth wrote:

(Aside: if it is possible to name these congregations online, that would also help prove that churches and their leaders can be open and public about being opposed to women's ordination rather than having to live in the closet)

I'm quite interested in this question too. I would be astonished (and pleased) to hear of more than three. The two conservative Anglican churches that I have best knowledge of—St Jude's Carlton and Holy Trinity Doncaster—both allow women to preach semi-regularly, as I understand it. Happy to be corrected, though.

[Luke Isham]

Jereth has asked a good question although perhaps definitions of complementarian and egalitarian churches are in order.  I doubt there would be many churches in the entire Diocese of Melbourne that would actively promote the complementarian position, some may tolerate it, others actively promote an egalitarian position. If we are unable to name them publicly then maybe there is a problem and the complimentarian grievances are genuine?

[Gordon Cheng]

Luke Isham wrote:

 some may tolerate it

If 'toleration' is the criterion, then I guess non-Melburnians are being asked to believe that the whole diocese is complementarian!

My definition of 'complementarian' is well summarized by the Equal but Different website, and would include churches which permit women to preach but exclude churches where such preaching was permitted in the context of mixed congregations (thus excluding, I think, Carlton and Doncaster).

[Tim Patrick]

Luke Isham wrote:

Jereth has asked a good question although perhaps definitions of complementarian and egalitarian churches are in order.  I doubt there would be many churches in the entire Diocese of Melbourne that would actively promote the complementarian position, some may tolerate it, others actively promote an egalitarian position. If we are unable to name them publicly then maybe there is a problem and the complimentarian grievances are genuine?

I'm not going to give a list here. As I've said elsewhere, I think it's up to individual churches and church leaders to speak for themselves rather than to have to wear the labels that others stick on them. Some may be complimentarian but don't want that to be their primary identifying characteristic. Others may be complimentarian but have a nuanced understanding of what that means. And there may be some that are complimentarian but haven't even thought of themselves using that language. Anyway, my point is that I don't think this is all about being 'allowed' to go on the record, it's more to do with letting churches speak for themselves. If you're interested in the view of a particular congregation, why not just ask the minister directly and see what they say? Seems a pretty straightforward approach to me.

I'm glad for those of you who responded to my challenge too. It was a bit blunt I admit, but I do think some of us need to see ourselves as the new leaders who will rise up to the long and hard task of working for postive change and growth within a denomination that has gone astray at many points. I'm confident that a good number of those new leaders are already around within our church and I'm excited about they might do in the years ahead.

[Jereth]

Gordon Cheng wrote:

My definition of 'complementarian' is well summarized by the Equal but Different website, and would include churches which permit women to preach but exclude churches where such preaching was permitted in the context of mixed congregations (thus excluding, I think, Carlton and Doncaster).

You mention Carlton (i.e. St. Judes). Can I just say (as I've said once before, I think) that I am quite happy to live with Richard Condie's publicly expressed policy of male headship, with occasional female "preaching" "underneath" that headship. I believe that there is a place for women addressing the mixed congregation in a manner that does not contravene 1 Timothy 2:11-15. We need to work out what Paul meant by "prophecy" (1 Corinthians 11) which clearly is allowed, and "teaching with authority" (1 tim 2) which is not allowed.

A problem evangelicals suffer from is that we usually reduce "public word ministry" to the "Sunday sermon". (Once in a while we may also allow the "personal testimony".) However, Scripture envisions a range of other public word ministries: the "word of encouragement" (Acts 13:15), the "lesson" (1 Cor 14:26), the "revelation" (1 Cor 14:26), "prophecy" (1 Cor 11) and so forth. I think that many of these other public word ministries are not "authoritative teaching", and are therefore open to women. If we allowed the regular exercise of some of these other ministries in our Sunday services -- by both men and women -- while keeping the "sermon" restricted to men, perhaps that would resolve some of our problems.

Tim wrote:

If you're interested in the view of a particular congregation, why not just ask the minister directly and see what they say? Seems a pretty straightforward approach to me.

Fair enough... problem is, when I'm a long-term committed member of one church and have never met these other ministers, it can be a bit difficult to ask them directly! Are we supposed to go on a massive tour of Melbourne churches, asking them one by one where they stand?!?

I'm glad for those of you who responded to my challenge too. It was a bit blunt I admit, but I do think some of us need to see ourselves as the new leaders who will rise up to the long and hard task of working for postive change and growth within a denomination that has gone astray at many points. I'm confident that a good number of those new leaders are already around within our church and I'm excited about they might do in the years ahead.

I've been wanting to ask you this Tim, and didn't get a chance previously (including during our little chat at church today). My question is: are we all clear exactly what is involved in being "the new leaders who will rise up to the long and hard task of working for postive change and growth..." ? In my view, this will sooner or later (actually, sooner) involve directly confronting the egalitarians over their understanding and interpretation of Scripture. We need full and frank public disclosure about where we stand. And we need to be able to tell our egalitarian brothers and sisters, lovingly but firmly: "You are in error, you have misunderstood the Scriptures; and while we can support your ministry in a general way and from a distance, we cannot work with you, we cannot employ you in our churches, and we cannot work under you in your churches".

Is this also what you have in mind Tim? Or, do you envisage complementarians being able to stand up and move forward, assume leadership etc. in a more "hidden" and less "confrontational" way?

[Tim Patrick]

Jereth wrote:

In my view, this will sooner or later (actually, sooner) involve directly confronting the egalitarians over their understanding and interpretation of Scripture. We need full and frank public disclosure about where we stand. And we need to be able to tell our egalitarian brothers and sisters, lovingly but firmly: "You are in error, you have misunderstood the Scriptures; and while we can support your ministry in a general way and from a distance, we cannot work with you, we cannot employ you in our churches, and we cannot work under you in your churches".

Is this also what you have in mind Tim? Or, do you envisage complementarians being able to stand up and move forward, assume leadership etc. in a more "hidden" and less "confrontational" way?

No less hidden, but perhaps less confrontational. As I've said in various places in the past, and as at least one other complimentarian speaking about ministry in Melbourne has also said, my commitment to effective gospel ministry turns disagreement over this into a second order issue. It's important, but I think there are bigger fish to fry.

And for me, I don't just take this line pragmatically, I also believe I have a good Scriptural precedent. I know you're going to want me to demonstrate that and I'm happy to do so at some stage, but just now I'm trying to get a whole lot of work finished off before I head interstate and so I'm going to leave you hanging... (insert smiley faced thingo here)

Tim

[Gordon Cheng]

Anyway, my point is that I don't think this is all about being 'allowed' to go on the record, it's more to do with letting churches speak for themselves. If you're interested in the view of a particular congregation, why not just ask the minister directly and see what they say? Seems a pretty straightforward approach to me.

I'm heaps interested. You mustn't imagine that this forum is the only place I'm asking the question. So far I'm aware of a report of one Anglican church in Melbourne that is clearly complementarian (not Carlton or Doncaster, which aren't) and I would very much want to hear of others, privately if people are worried about consequences.

It may be that there are people reading this forum who know of complementarian Anglican churches in Melbourne, and if so I would like to hear from them at gcheng AT matthiasmedia.com.au
[replacing the AT with @]

[Jereth]

Gordo,

May I ask - why are you so interested to know whether there are complementarian churches in Melbourne? As a Sydney-sider that is. Is it just academic interest?

Me and some fellow Melbourne people certainly want to know, but that's because we're here in the thick of it, and might possibly seek "refuge" in a complementarian church as things get progressively worse for us.

I do know of a couple churches where the leadership is currently complementarian, but I don't want to name them online -- I might send you a private email if you're interested.

Jereth

[Andrew Bowles]

I'd like to second Jereth's question about what you're planning to do with the names of complementarian churches, Gordon. Given that the email address that you provide is linked to Matthias Media, and not a personal email address, I think the forum would appreciate knowing.

[Luke Isham]

No parish that I know of in Melbourne is 'offically' complimentarian in the way the para-church Anglican organisation 'Reform' is.  Some would favour it in the sense of male parish and diocese leadership but allowing women to preach etc.  If you add the Forward in Faith parishes to the 'evangelical' moderate complimentarian parishes then you get about a dozen in total.  

[Danny Saunders]

Thanks Luke for pointing us to the 'Reform' website. It makes for very interesting reading regarding this discussion topic. Probably a group like that and something like The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood needs to happen in Melbourne amongst concerned evangelicals (if there's any left?!). For more see: http://www.cbmw.org/Danvers

[Jereth]

Luke wrote:

No parish that I know of in Melbourne is 'offically' complimentarian in the way the para-church Anglican organisation 'Reform' is.  Some would favour it in the sense of male parish and diocese leadership but allowing women to preach etc.  If you add the Forward in Faith parishes to the 'evangelical' moderate complimentarian parishes then you get about a dozen in total.  

There are a couple parishes aroudn the place with Moore college leadership and hence would not be favourable towards ordained women or women preaching. But AFAIK they can be counted on the fingers of half a hand.

Danny Saunders wrote:

Thanks Luke for pointing us to the 'Reform' website. It makes for very interesting reading regarding this discussion topic. Probably a group like that and something like The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood needs to happen in Melbourne amongst concerned evangelicals (if there's any left?!). For more see: http://www.cbmw.org/Danvers

nudge nudge wink wink let's just say there might possibly already be some concerned Melbourne Anglicans as you say who have organised themselves into a group and collectively signed off on the Danvers Statement, as well as the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy... Send me a private email if you're interested

Interestingly one of the members of the Reform council is Bp Wallace Benn who had some good stuff to say at GAFCON.