Australia’s first female bishop interviewed

Alas, I read through the entire transcript and found nothing in it that contained any hint of a passionate love for Christ or any sound grasp of the authentic gospel.  True, there was no strong feminist rhetoric either, but unfortunately, Bp. Kay Goldsworthy seems all too typical of so many Anglican clergy, whether bishops, priests, or deacons in that she comes across as….

nice and rather innocuous.

You know the old joke about Anglicanism: “the bland leading the bland.”

Nothing apostolic about that.  Peter, Paul, and the rest of the original apostolic band were anything but harmless, bland, innocuous, and just “nice.”  Their preaching and church planting turned the world upside down.  Or the Holy Spirit did that through them. 

Of course, miracles can and do happen, and she can change by the grace of God.  But it’s distinctly possible that given the controversial nature of the ordination of women to the episcopate, +Kay Goldsworthy was chosen precisely because she was so inoffensive personally.

David Ould+, do you have anything yet that you could post about the second woman bishop about to be consecrated in Australia, Barbara Darling in Melbourne?

David Handy+

Comment deleted like an arrow to the bull’s eye.
Almost completely and utterly off-topic.

Bishop, please don’t post like this again. If you have any doubts about comment policy then please refer here. Failure to abide with these policies will result in the removal of all posting privileges.

Good grief.

Good grief. 

I know. And the article on Goldsworthy was disturbing, too.

Are we seriously going to use the “Vicar of Dibley” to clarify objections to the ordination of women? That series has about as much in common with reality as a certain bishop’s claim to be a simple country kind of guy.

Peter Ould+,
We here in the San Joaquin will be praying for you all in Australia! This is going to be a bumpy ride and you are going to need every bit of prayer you can get. Lord have mercy!

Peter Ould+, 

someone explain, please

Peter Ould is the twin who lives in England. David Ould is the twin that lives in Australia. Happy now David?

Happy now David? 

well, sort of. There was no sycophancy so a little disappointing

Rev. David, Rev David, Rev David, Rev David. Should I Rev Peter, too?

This got me:

Kay Goldsworthy
I guess the fact that there have been women bishops for 20 years the sky didn’t fall in, Henny Penny.

So the communion is at the point of Schism, “Christians” suing Christians, etc. But it’s all OK because that sky is still up there.

Some of us read the Scriptures and see texts such as this:

  1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

and treat it as authoritative. Others, including Goldsworthy, don’t.

I think that this is a bit too simplistic. There are of course those who hold such texts as authoritative, but still permit women to exercise authority. Including fine theologians such as NT Wright, although I find his analysis rather too similar to Genesis 3:1 for my taste.

I don’t think we want to rehash on this thread all the arguments concerning WO, both pro and con.  Suffice to say, that I am one of those who strongly supports WO, but very much on biblical grounds and not on the basis of some secular claim to equal human rights.  That is, I would take an egalitarian text such as Acts 2:17-18 as being more central and weighty than a late and peripheral text like 1 Tim. 2:11-14. 

I regard Paul’s frequent positive mentions of female “co-workers,” including the deacon Phoebe, who carried his important letter to the Romans from Corinth to Rome (Rom. 16:1), and his explicit endorsement of the freedom of women to prophesy in church (1 Cor. 11) as more important and weighty than the command for them to be silent in church in 1 Cor. 14:34-36 (a dubious passage that I take to be a later scribal addition to the text and not from Paul himself).

Please don’t misunderstand me.  That’s not an attempt to throw down the gauntlet and challenge those who disagree with me to reopening the debate over WO here.  It’s merely to reaffirm the fact that there are many of us within the orthodox camp (or if you insist, the otherwise orthodox camp) who firmly support WO, but who are sincerely convinced (however deluded others may think us) that we have good biblical grounds for doing so.

Alas, Bp. Goldsworthy comes off sounding flippant in her comment about the sky not falling after the ordination of women as bishops.  Now granted, she is speaking to a secular audience in this interview, but her casual dismissal of any opposition to the idea of women bishops belittles and demeans those who have principled objections to it on biblical and theological grounds.

I agree that this is distrubing indeed.

David Handy+

Well, I’ve never seen The Vicar but not being unevenly yoked to a non-christian seems basic, esp. for a clergyman. Another instance where though it doesn’t appear petulant, the thing comes off as doing what one wants to do. The henny-penny remark becomes more revealing in the light of dismissing a basic.

Time will tell. Blessings on the Diocese of Sydney and the new bishop.

who firmly support WO, but who are sincerely convinced (however deluded others may think us) that we have good biblical grounds for doing so.

Doesn’t it trouble you at all that, to do so, you have to perceive contradictions between your interpretation of passages you describe as central, and those which you are then forced to dismiss as “late and peripheral”... or even decide must be non-authoritative accretions to scripture (get out Marcion’s scissors)?

Or that the interpretation you put on them runs contrary to the clear teaching and practice of apostolic and patristic Tradition? Or that this requires reading Scripture in contradiction to Scripture, contrary even to the sola Scriptura ideals?

Doesn’t it trouble you that the passages you describe as “central and weighty” are either general statements (Acts 2:17-18) which say nothing specific about ordination or authority in the church, are irrelevant (prophesy) or about non-debated issues (deaconesses)—and thus the interpretation you put on them reads something into the text and creates the contradiction with the other Scriptural passages—while those other passages you are dismissing as unimportant or spurious are the ones which actually address the specific issue?

Doesn’t it trouble you at all that this is precisely the same methodology and approach to Scripture which is used by the homosexualists to justify their own interpretations and practices?

——-

Her answer about not thinking it will cause a split is, actually, probably right. Those who accept Scipture and Tradition’s teaching about the ordination of women have, presumably, either left or capitulated by this point… or have decided (as KG puts it—and as many who post on this blog believe) that it is a “second order” matter and not worth making a split over. (How the apostolic succession and reliability of sacramental grace can possibly be viewed a “second order” matter for the Church I just don’t understand—but that’s a separate discussion.)

Further, Scripture & Tradition’s teaching is clear not just about “bishops” but about bishops, priests and deacons (as opposed to lay deaconesses), so the “desensitization” to the issue doesn’t just date from the first female “bishop”, but from the first female clergy, which predate that by over a decade.

At least in the Anglican Communion as a whole—does anyone know how long the Australian church has been ordaining women… seems to me that that local circumstance will be more significant to the local reaction than what the A.C. has done as a whole.

——

pax,
LP

OOps! My bad! I meant David Ould not Peter….I suffered a mental transfer as I was speaking to a Peter a few minutes prior to commenting and it was late! My apologies David, please forgive me. But you are still in our prayers!

LP (#14),

I am well aware of the factors in the WO debate that you point out.  I don’t take the radical departure from this historical tradition of a male-only priesthood and episcopate lightly.  Not at all.  If you wish to know more about my own personal way of justifying WO on biblical and theological grounds I’d be happy to explain it offline.  I doubt that the folks who run SF want this thread to become yet another long, controversial discussion of the validity of WO.

But I’ll just make two brief and hopefully irenic comments in response to your rather inflammatory post, LP.

First, the tensions are there in Holy Scripture, whatever you make of them.  That is, biblical passages like Acts 2:17-18 (which stresses a matter of equal ministry privileges, ie., how men and women both will prophesy when the Spirit comes) and 1 Cor. 11:5 (where women clearly may prophesy in church) do stand in clear tension with texts like 1 Tim. 2:12 and 1 Cor. 14:34-35.  How to resolve that tension is certainly debatable, but the tension is real and poses a challenge to BOTH sides in the WO debate.  But the basic answer to your pointed question, LP, is “NO, it doesn’t trouble me, but neither do I make such decisions lightly.”

Second, while there are many matters that are controversial and subject to legitimate differences of opinion, there are also some matters that are clearly matters of historical fact, but which aren’t always understood by everyone who gets involved in the WO debate.  And one of these is the role of female DEACONS, not deaconesses, in the early Church. 

Phoebe in Rom. 16:1 is a clear case.  Please note that the Greek word used to describe her in that verse has the masculine ending, “diaconos,” not the feminine ending “diacona.”  And there is very clear and unambiguous evidence that there were women DEACONS in the late second century (e.g., in the fascinating anonymous church manual, The Apostolic Tradition, where women deacons baptize all the women converts, since baptism was then done in the nude).  And the passing enigmatic reference to women deacons in 1 Tim. 3:11 is indeed probably about female deacons, not just deacon’s wives (although the Greek word used is ambiguous, the context favors the former interpretation).  But the whole idea of lay “deaconesses” is a very late Protestant invention and has no basis in either the Bible or the early patristic period.

In short, the matter is far more complicated than you seem to appreciate, LP.  But before we could have a profitable discussion, we’d at least have to get the FACTS straight.  And one of those facts is that the biblical evidence is MIXED.  There is support for BOTH the pro WO and the anti WO position.  That’s why the debate has gone on so long.  And that’s why very orthodox provinces like Uganda, Kenya, and Rwanda feel comfortable ordaining women.

I hope that sheds more light than heat.  Feel free to contact me privately, LP, if you want to know more.  Preferably using the personal email option here at SF rather than the PM option.  But I don’t want to get drawn into another fruitless debate over WO here on this thread.  And I don’t think David, or Greg, or Sarah, or Matt+, or Jackie do either.

David Handy+

In short, the matter is far more complicated than you seem to appreciate, LP.

I agree that this isn’t the place for another WO discussion—so, like you, I’ll make this my last post on that in this thread.

In reply to the above, I appreciate the complexities—and the realities—of the debate far better than you seem to realize… and perhaps better than you do yourself. (See below).

.

If you (or other readers new to this subject and interested by it) go back and search out the designated 2-part WO discussion archived on this site, you’ll find lots of discussion about all these issues, including many posts by yours truly. In those, the issue of “prophesy” (not a clerical function), the Scriptural use of the general term ‘diakonos’ and its development into an official term for the clerical office, the historical development and functions of the lay office of diaconess are all amply addressed.

For those readers who want to pursue this topic (which—DH+ is right—shouldn’t be in this thread) you can find those posts (parts 1 and 2) here:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/3753/
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/3813/

There’s also some useful discussion about deaconesses in this thread:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/1939

I won’t post on this thread—at least not about the WO issue—further, out of respect for SF’s policies… you can check the links above for some of my (and others’) thoughts.

.

DH - Only two quick points in specific reply to your post… and then (as you say) enough about it on this thread.

First, I apologize if I came across as inflamatory—I didn’t mean to be offensive, merely to express myself vigorously. My comments weren’t intended as “personal”... they were against the position, not the person.

But I do genuinely believe that the same “mindset” and “approach” to Scripture and Tradition which re-structure them in order to “approve” of WO is precisely the same one as that which the homosexualists use. And while, no doubt, there are many of the latter who really don’t care what Scripture says and are simply rationalizing, I’m sure there are some who have convinced themselves that Scripture actually does say what they want it to. Again, it’s not the “honesty” or “piety” of the individual that is in question, but the accuracy and coherence of the interpretation.

Secondly—and here I will be blunt again—your own post reveals that you aren’t nearly as well-versed in the subject as you seem to think you are. You say:

But the whole idea of lay “deaconesses” is a very late Protestant invention and has no basis in either the Bible or the early patristic period.

This is 100% historically inaccurate and shows (again, to be blunt) an ignorance of some of the most important and relevant historical texts on the question, including the Council of Nicaea!

The Apostolic Constitutions—a 4th century collection of earlier church manuals (such as the Didache)—says this:

A deacon does not bless, does not give the blessing, but receives it from the bishop and presbyter: he does not baptize, he does not offer; but when a bishop or presbyter has offered, he distributes to the people, not as a priest, but as one that ministers to the priests. But it is not lawful for any one of the other clergy to do the work of a deacon.  A deaconess does not bless, nor perform anything belonging to the office of presbyters or deacons, but only is to keep the doors, and to minister to the presbyters in the baptizing of women, on account of decency.

The order of deaconesses is not that of deacons.

And Canon 19 of the Council of Nicaea states:

We refer to deaconesses who have been granted this status, for they do not receive any imposition of hands, so that <u>they are in all respects to be numbered among the laity</u>.

So, there you are—well before you claim later Protestants “invented” a lay order of deaconesses—we have explit teaching and records of traditional early Church practice both that the order of deaconess is not deacons, that the functions they perform (such as assisting in baptism) don’t make them equivalent to deacons, and that they are, explicitly, laity.

More on all these passages (and additional relevant historical information) can be found in the threads linked above.

pax,
LP

Well, I’ve gotten back to look at the whole interview and it is hard for me to not conclude that the whole business is not civic rights and aspirations driven. Perhaps not as pushy as in the US but there nonetheless. The interviewer set the tone but it was not without doing her research ahead of time.

This is what we have folks. So again, blessings to the diocese and the new bishop.

While I take the point about The Vicar of Dibley, I am surprised that you even note it. There is a certain accuracy about it. But there is also a polemic about the subtext of the sorts of morality it promotes.
A deeply disturbing thing about that program was how it said more (I suggest) about Dawn French than about how a Christian might behave. But why shoudl we be surprised about that.
While those of us who live in clergy households know that we are just as earthy as those who don’t (much to the surprise of parishioners…yes clergy do make mistakes, yes they conceive children in the usual way, some even drink) most of us try not to be smutty, or promote sexual immorality…which was all too evident in Dawn French’s lusty vicar.
She is not like most of the women clergy I know!

She is not like most of the women clergy I know!

That is precisely my point, coro35 [19].  While the early episodes of “Dibley” are quite enjoyable and bear that certain accuracy you note, as the series wore on, the Vicar became more and more outrageous, and the connection with reality became more and more tenuous.  By the last few episodes, the connection was totally severed. Somewhere in between, I realized I did NOT want to watch the series with my children present anymore!