tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post4394678633516379350..comments2024-03-29T06:46:24.700+01:00Comments on The Ugley Vicar: An Anglican Species Becomes ExtinctAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-87863770252858551092012-07-05T16:32:59.149+01:002012-07-05T16:32:59.149+01:00The phrase 'a feminised church' is no doub...The phrase 'a feminised church' is no doubt intended to be insulting and certainly reads as such. It also demeans those who use it.Andrew Godsallnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-77545849313155411422012-07-05T15:01:23.107+01:002012-07-05T15:01:23.107+01:00Nice to see Canon Andrew winding us all up again. ...Nice to see Canon Andrew winding us all up again. Perhaps he should stick to blogs where they all agree with him. <br /><br />Could I suggest, as I have often done before, that the discussion about women bishops is not at all the same as the one about women priests? As evangelicals, we have a low view of the priesthood - there weren't any in the early church (they had left them all in the Temple), and ordination and sacramental considerations are post-NT ideas. Thus we found ourselves in 1994 not worrying too much about issues which, frankly, were extra-Biblical issues. And so Resolution C became largely the province of Anglo-Catholics. <br /><br />However, there are Bishops in the New Testament, and they are very much associated with the overall authority of the infant church, an authority which certainly existed in the NT. And they were all male, and the NT perpetuates the maleness of authority by insisting on it. That's difficult to argue with, unless you discredit the authority with which it is made. <br /><br />Thus, while we Evangelical would argue that ordination is nothing more than a particular recognition of a specific ministry, consecration is rather different and has rahter more far-reaching implications.<br /><br />As I said above, if you want to know what a feminised church looks like, look no further than the church in North America.Richard Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14995833811532550388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-18874480530584979462012-07-05T12:25:23.788+01:002012-07-05T12:25:23.788+01:00The Levite thing is interesting. In 1 Kings 12:31,...The Levite thing is interesting. In 1 Kings 12:31, they abandon it. I guess arguing, God loves all Israelites the same. From that verse on, Israel goes down hill.<br /><br />It looks like there was no 2 integrities. Traditionalists who didn't accept this innovation were overlooked. Elijah confronted the institution and Elisha worked outside/parallel to it with a faithful remnant. <br /><br />Maybe that's the way to deal with the Wallace = the end of the line problem.Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08361261497867599745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-3384068863499272972012-07-05T06:30:37.940+01:002012-07-05T06:30:37.940+01:00Interestingly- and I had forgotten this - Wallace ...Interestingly- and I had forgotten this - Wallace was on the C of E working party concerning women in the episcopate.....I don't recall him dissenting from it.Andrew Godsallnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-70973183016766562302012-07-04T23:55:55.850+01:002012-07-04T23:55:55.850+01:00John, do please let this one last post through!
A...John, do please let this one last post through!<br /><br />Andrew: the Bible is of course a "two-edged sword". However I didn't think the expression "proof text" was that polemical - you're welcome to choose a softer term.<br /><br />Looking back I fail to see your answer to the issue of Levites. What in their "cultural situation" could have given rise to this particular restriction to one tribe out of twelve - were they smarter or holier than the rest?<br /><br />The point, of course, is that God can indeed discriminate without injustice - something which doctrinaire church feminists always assume is impossible as if by very definition. And having done it once, he can do it twice - and there's no universal principle to which anyone can appeal by which to claim the church was sinning for 1900 years.<br /><br />DanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-77856226637715003632012-07-04T22:52:47.028+01:002012-07-04T22:52:47.028+01:00Anyway, the point I made in the original post stil...Anyway, the point I made in the original post still stands. The Church of England made a formal commitment which it has not abided by in practice. Names <i>have</i> been put forward for preferment, but to no avail it would seem.<br /><br />Unless something drastic happens soon, Wallace will be the last of his kind for a while, which given that he was also virtually the first after the ordination of women is an indication of institutional 'discrimination'.<br /><br />However, unless someone's got anything fresh to say, I'm shutting down this thread pretty soon 'cos I have to read all this stuff.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-64484304376358535732012-07-04T22:41:07.287+01:002012-07-04T22:41:07.287+01:00Dan
Proof texts? Do you think the bible is a weap...Dan<br /><br />Proof texts? Do you think the bible is a weapon or something? <br />As to your OT 'fact on the ground'....I think I did answer. That and something to do with cultural situations seems to be the most likely.Andrew Godsallnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-85452412312733605942012-07-04T22:14:01.644+01:002012-07-04T22:14:01.644+01:00Except that Andrew, you still haven't accounte...Except that Andrew, you still haven't accounted for the OT fact on the ground I mentioned earlier.<br /><br />As for the provinces, remember Anglicanism is but a small part of the whole church. I suppose their reasons for this move vary somewhat depending where they are, but I'd guess they were motivated by an evangelistic pragmatism sadly unmatched by theological solidity.<br /><br />Suppose, as you say, that Biblical arguments against WO/WB are weak. What exactly are Biblical arguments on the other side? What are the respective proof-texts? Not Galatians 3:28....<br /><br />DanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-2613458537523735442012-07-04T16:22:52.140+01:002012-07-04T16:22:52.140+01:00"this is a bit like who's line is it anyw..."this is a bit like who's line is it anyway. Ask Andrew a question and he answers with a question."<br /><br />And you never see Jesus doing that in the Gospels I suppose? ;) <br /><br />It's called dialogue......Andrew Godsallnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-68618896574764588082012-07-04T16:12:57.459+01:002012-07-04T16:12:57.459+01:00this is a bit like who's line is it anyway. As...this is a bit like who's line is it anyway. Ask Andrew a question and he answers with a question.Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08361261497867599745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-46867260172436312282012-07-04T16:11:26.354+01:002012-07-04T16:11:26.354+01:00Because, under pressure from what others do and wh...Because, under pressure from what others do and what they want, they have looked for a way to understand the texts in such a way as to muddy the water to get a new understanding. To some degree or another there are strong cultural pulls and, "everyone else is doing it." Why does any other "new" understanding start?<br /><br />But again, I'm off to Presbyterian land. There, the C of S & PCUSA have gone off on a different track. EPC (USA) is a very loose body which has taken 2 integrities to another level (but seems to thrive on it). But Confessional Presbyterianism (unlike C of E, Methodism, URC), is thriving. In the places (like England) where it's a new thing it's obviously small, but growing and paying it's own way. No demographic chasm just yet.<br /><br />Let me put the question back. Given the radical nature of Christianity from the word go. Why did it take 2,000 years to get to this point?<br /><br />Also, why do people like me, who are used to bright women with high power jobs, for whom life would be much easier to go with the flow stick to their guns? In fact, those who pull my leg for being too wishy washy are usually young, well educated women.Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08361261497867599745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-76012278592734966142012-07-04T14:32:05.996+01:002012-07-04T14:32:05.996+01:00So Darren why have 29 out of 38 provinces in very ...So Darren why have 29 out of 38 provinces in very different parts of the Anglican Communion ordained women as priests do you think?Andrew Godsallnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-743444589939788152012-07-04T13:50:24.622+01:002012-07-04T13:50:24.622+01:00Sorry, should have said, I think many would apprec...Sorry, should have said, I think many would appreciate having the Biblical discussion again. In every synod etc. I've been to, not a single text has been mentioned, as we assume it's been decided. Also, clearly by what people have said to me, they have no idea what I actually think (e.g. women can't work, or aren't as clever). All I've seen is charactures of an argument, or not very subtle put downs of it (dealt with well, I think in books and sites like Recovering Biblical manhood and womanhood).<br /><br />To say the argument is week, would beg the question, can a week argument dupe the Church for 2,000 years?Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08361261497867599745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-57197494852689177212012-07-04T13:37:38.138+01:002012-07-04T13:37:38.138+01:00I think we trust the Holy Spirit by listening to t...I think we trust the Holy Spirit by listening to the words that he gave to the Prophets and the Apostles on the foundation once laid, rather than putting words into his mouth.<br /><br />Do you mean, to say that Athanasius wasn't trusting the Holy Spirit when the majority of the Church had hetrodox views on the Trinity? That Luther and the English Martyrs weren't trusting the Holy Spirit? Is trusting the Holy Spirit just going with the flow?<br /><br />Does that means people like yourself have not trusted the Spirit by having to make changes through Synods?<br /><br />I'm aware of the Biblical arguments in the debate. The arguments for have been, frankly hermeneutic gymnastics. If we treated each others words in the same way, chaos would take over. But, in fact Biblical arguments are rarely used. Other than things complimentarians would agree with, "Look, women Ministered with Jesus, Priscila & Aquila taught Apollos" etc.... mmm, yep, good &?<br /><br />I wouldn't want to wade in with Tom Wright. He is a giant. But, when he speaks of being from a Reformed stable, I refer you to my example a while ago about my shape. Just because I used to wear 32" trousers, with a 44" jacket at 6' tall, doesn't mean that in 2012 I can still shop at the same end of the rack.<br /><br />(I'm sure I'm not the only one who has nominated conservative Evangelicals)Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08361261497867599745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-525948008013124082012-07-04T12:20:08.067+01:002012-07-04T12:20:08.067+01:00Darren
There are 38 provinces. The latest figures...Darren<br /><br />There are 38 provinces. The latest figures I have are for 2010 and back then only 9 did not ordain women as Priests. 3 of those ordained them as Deacons. So it is hardly true to say that 'many don't'. <br /><br />You must be aware that the biblical arguments against ordaining women are weak and not even recognised as such by many evangelical biblical scholars. Tom Wright is an obvious example. <br /><br />As to Conservative Evangelical bishops: surely the crucial thing is that we get bishops who can share the Gospel effectively and teach clearly. If you know conservative evangelical candidates when there is a vacancy you are free to put forward names in the same way as the rest of us do. After that you have to trust the holy spirit don't you?Andrew Godsallnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-2621236574565686682012-07-04T11:37:59.349+01:002012-07-04T11:37:59.349+01:00Andrew, is that true about the "majority"...Andrew, is that true about the "majority" of Provinces? I don't know specifically which do & don't. I do know, that many don't and the "big ones" don't.<br /><br />The problem with your reply is that it mixes categories. I did not say that everything was better in the past. However, we believe in one holy catholic & apostolic church, we say in Communion "with angels and archangels & all the company of Heaven". So the Church is all the Christians around the world... AND through time. "Listening to the Spirit" and coming up with radically different answers to the Bible and the historic church means we're listening to the spirit of the age, not the Holy Spirit. The Reformers went to great lengths to show that non of their ideas were knew and were pretty common among the church of the 1st 4-500 years. It's interesting when reading Puritans how rare it is for them to quote a Reformer, yet the quote the Fathers regularly. Can we really get a group together, vote on truth, without consulting the church of the past. Are we really closer to truth further away from the source... unless we could some how have access to that source, perhaps in some sort of inspired book?<br /><br />When it comes to women in professions, there is no Biblical injunction against that. Nobody, for a moment, has ever questioned women's ability or Godliness. The reason for observing a gender distinction, in a relativly narrow field of ministry is to express something about the created order, indeed as we do in marriage. If we don't respect these things then we are being mere stick in the muds about not going with new laws renaming husbands & wives partners A & B. If gender distinction is merely about plumbing, then we need to chill out about a whole host of things.<br /><br />When it comes to slavery... please? 1 Timothy 1:10 is pretty clear isn't it? It seems pretty clear that Paul favoured freedom. His words to slaves are to be godly as slaves. To Masters - to be such good masters people would be as well to be your slave as to be free; given then the alternative may have been to starve. To equate this debate (as people do with the homosexual one) to the slavery debate shows either a complete lack of understanding over the issues, or a deliberate polemic to falsely associate one issue with another so people want to disassociate themselves.<br /><br />Also, very few men are qualified to be an Elder/Bishop. But, as John pointed out in the piece that triggered this, when will a Wallace Benn type ever be bishop again? That's descriminatory isn't it?Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08361261497867599745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-64430887539767247382012-07-04T09:33:05.805+01:002012-07-04T09:33:05.805+01:00Yes, agreed. I was meaning God was not discriminat...Yes, agreed. I was meaning God was not discriminatory in the equalities act sense of the term.Andrew Godsallnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-54350807420354149922012-07-04T08:25:44.213+01:002012-07-04T08:25:44.213+01:00Of course God is discriminatory. He discriminates ...Of course God is discriminatory. He discriminates between that which is within his moral will, and that which isn't. He discriminates between narrow gate and wide gate. He discriminates between sheep and goats. Jacob he loved, but Esau he hated.<br /><br />The God who isn't discriminatory is not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, nor is he the Father revealed in Jesus.<br /><br />The only discussion worth having is how God discriminates and why, not whether he does so.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11978229988713658551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-25909648727872004402012-07-04T07:59:55.049+01:002012-07-04T07:59:55.049+01:00Dan and Chris: I'm pretty sure God isn't d...Dan and Chris: I'm pretty sure God isn't discriminatory. But I am sure that people do discriminatory things in God's name and always have done. <br /><br />Darren: If you think things were once better, then let's stop women being doctors, or having the vote, or being politicians, or reading the news. These are all VERY recent developments on your scheme of things. People opposed them all when they were introduced. <br />And let's bring back slavery. And get rid of running hot and cold. And have no electricity any more. Meanwhile, you seem to forget that the majority of Anglican provinces actually do have women priests. <br />And I don't see any one insisting on anything. How much easier this would be if any of us could insist....<br />And if I had not listened to people like you and John I'd be insisting on a single clause measure.Andrew Godsallnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-6004470845449791252012-07-03T22:55:59.520+01:002012-07-03T22:55:59.520+01:00A question here: Does God *ever* discriminate agai...A question here: Does God *ever* discriminate against anyone for all or any reason?<br /><br />Could he ever be done under the Equalities Act?<br /><br />Chris Bishop<br />DevonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-64517243785567748222012-07-03T22:33:50.064+01:002012-07-03T22:33:50.064+01:00"If it isn't fundamental, then why insist..."If it isn't fundamental, then why insist others go along with it?"<br /><br />Bullseye.<br /><br />And Andrew, tell me please: was God "discriminating against" non-Levites in OT Israel when he didn't let them be priests?<br /><br />I'd really like an answer to this one. Go on: this is your Matthew 21:25 moment.<br /><br />DanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-81379755372680783442012-07-03T19:52:03.774+01:002012-07-03T19:52:03.774+01:00Actually, taking the "most are against the de...Actually, taking the "most are against the death penalty, but we can't hang a few, to keep those who want to keep it happy." argument, with what I've just said about C of E isn't Anglicanism, isn't global Christianity, isn't historic Christianity... a better analogy would be:<br /><br />Everyone wants to keep the death penalty, except the majority of a Cornish village. Oh look the minority of the Cornish village are getting on their high horse.<br /><br />Choice of analogy is slightly polemical too.Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08361261497867599745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-85627572712512375332012-07-03T19:47:48.194+01:002012-07-03T19:47:48.194+01:00Andrew, of course you won't... what would that...Andrew, of course you won't... what would that imply!<br /><br />I am leaving the C of E, over a host of issues and in many (most) ways really being attracted by something that is certainly more "me", but also, frankly, a bit more sane. That's not to say everyone must follow, but people have some hard thinking to do.<br /><br />HOWEVER, John's question to you is huge and well and truly dodged. If the C of E is so unjust, and was in the 80s, leave, become methodist, or the like. <br /><br />The fact that it isn't over fundamentals is a slippery one. If it isn't fundamental, then why insist others go along with it? The opening it up to the other 1/2 of the human race suggests you've not listened to people like John and me all along (which does not help the trust issue one bit). The gender teaching isn't about ability or the like, but expresses things about God, Church, creation.<br /><br />In a sense the point for us isn't the specific (although that's far from irrelevent), but being asked to do something that we haven't been convinced about from Scripture (even if we were horribly wrong). And the NT says lots about going against ones conscience.<br /><br />"It seems good to us and the Holy Spirit." goes to the heart of where this goes wrong. The problem is that too many people think<br />C of E = Anglicanism... it doesn't. The C of E is a pimple on Anglicanism, a speck that does it's own thing. Then another leap is made. Anglicanism = Christianity and that all that matters is now.<br /><br />So, where the previous 2,000 years of Christians so non-spiritual & deaf, but now, a group of people (who grow up in the 50s-60s) suddenly have seen, what Athanasius, Augustine, Luther, Cyprian could not? Oh, sorry, they weren't Anglican.Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08361261497867599745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-1917446487329185012012-07-03T18:43:43.698+01:002012-07-03T18:43:43.698+01:00Well we don't agree that it is dishonest John,...Well we don't agree that it is dishonest John, and it was not me who claimed it was.Andrew Godsallnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-8770615378228225742012-07-03T17:31:00.172+01:002012-07-03T17:31:00.172+01:00Andrew, Alan Wilson's argument was very silly....Andrew, Alan Wilson's argument was very silly. But the answer to dishonesty is not that those who have been treated badly should leave!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.com