Congratulations to Kaye Goldsworthy, Australia’s first female Anglican Bishop, consecrated today.
I tell you its the thin end of the wedge though. Before you know it women will be allowed to vote and who knows where it could lead…
Some believe the next step will be gay priests, but personally I am finding it hard to make the connection.
You can read more here.
Good point Grendel – sometimes we get far too involved with stuff we either don’t have the full picture on, or aren’t fully invested in.
‘Bailing our own boat 1st’… good picture!
Comment by Toddy — May 22, 2008 @ 8:42 pm
No, they’d have to many inner and existential conflicts Hamo
heard something on the ABC this morning by some west oz anglican bishop opposed to it these lines:
“it’s a bit like going to a pedigree dog show and having different breeds mating together – how are we now supposed to recognise the authority of a mans consecration to bishop/priest/etc if it’s been given by a woman? it creates ‘mongrels’.”
not sure if this guy had read the genealogy of christ lately but last time i checked he was directly related to a prostitute, adulterous murderer, widowed gentile…
and besides, can’t we find something worthwhile to argue about!
Hi Hamo,
Here is a thought on your thin edge of the wedge comment:
Women’s issues and gay issues in the Anglican church are all about rights.
The proponents of both are the same group in the Perth Anglican church.
In Perth Anglican circles, I think Harry Entwistle, as crazy a high anglo-catholic as he sounds (I want to distance myself from his expressions and practise), was right about the gay issue quickly following the women’s issue.
For evangelicals it is a different argument: Church order and male and female roles on one hand;and matters of human sexuality on the other.
Evangelicals have different views on women’s issues but there is much more one mind on the issue of practising homosexuals.
In God’s blueprint for human relationships in Genesis 1&2 the gift of physical sex is for a man and a woman in a life long union. (these days we call that marriage) any other sexual act outside of that union is defined as sexual immorality including homosexual sex amongst other things. Paul encourages us to flee sexual immorality in a number of places.
Liberals bring these two things together and make it an issue of justice.
Now we have our first female bishop in the Anglican Church of Australia look for support of practising homosexual priests. According to Perth Anglican Constitution unmarried priests are expected to practise chastity.
Talk of Practising homosexuals accepted into the priesthood was already around today….?
Gav
Here is one web headline brining the two together
Anglicans on way to ‘accommodate’ congregation’s differences
Posted 2 hours 38 minutes ago
The head of the Australian Anglican Church believes its clergy is coming to terms with homosexuals within the church. Last year the Anglican Church paved the way for women to become Bishops, and the Right Reverend Kay Goldsworthy became the first woman to take up the role last night. Bishop Goldsworthy says she will not be deterred by opposition from within the church.
“I think it’s really important for us to meet people as human beings rather than as ideas or fears of them,” she said. “Each of us is unique and are wonderful human beings and I think we need to take time to get to know each other.”
Opponents of the move to allow female bishops have warned it will lead to homosexual priests in the clergy. Primate of the Anglican Church Phillip Aspinall says there are a range of views that have to be worked through.
“If people are respected and their views taken seriously and ways seriously looked for to accommodate people, those ways usually can be found,” he said.
As far as bishops are concerned – I am no more in favour of women ones as I am of male ones. Priestcraft is a crock. However it is interesting that on the day she is made a bishop Kay Goldsworthy says one of her main aims is to bring women of all faiths together. Given the moribund state of the Anglican Church in Oz in general one would think that evangelism might get a look in as a concern, no?
I really don’t care too much that she is a woman, however I am concerned that the Anglican church is so completely out of touch with the community that if it thinks anyone even gives a crap that they finally “got with the times” and appointed a woman bishop, or if they even think that will make anyone give their church a second look, then they are away with the fairies (and that’s no comment on their sexuality!)
Comment by steve mac — May 23, 2008 @ 10:39 pm
Ah – lots to comment on here.
First up I am with Steve Mc on the priest thing. The only thing worse than having priests is having priests who can only be men.
Second – I realise this is probably a prickly issue for you Gav and we would obviously hold different viewpoints on the role of women in the church.
But I don’t think we can simply exclude women from legitimate roles because ‘if they get their rights then gay priest might get theirs too’.
I have no doubt that gay priests will eventuate.
I think its about as likely as the sun coming up tomorrow, but I don’t think we can amalgamate the issues.
Knowing several women – including the one I am married to – who are godly gifted and called to ministry I really struggle with the theology that sidelines them.
That said, I know there are great minds on both sides of this issue and given some of the best thinkers in the world don’t agree there is a pretty good chance I could be wrong!
(Then again so could you 
)
My problem is not the female bishop, it’s the clergy/laity distinction such a ceromony reveals.
While the ceremony might of looked great, I have yet to discover any New Testament parallels – while many of us have questions over a Hillsong Service my questions are just as great to the costumes, lying there on the floor, the altar, and all the rest of the @@@@@@@@ – just a whole bunch of humbug and some. Wish I could wear purple, I did once in the seventies.
You’d look great in purple too, MR…
The ‘woman priest’ thing is old. I’m glad that it has happened for those who would like to pursue it, but it’s old.
The ‘gay-priest’ thing tho, will be a whole new issue that the mainstream established church will need to brace itself for, cos it’s coming, and won’t be long before Baptist, Church of Christ, Southern Cross churches need to have a proper look tat the issue as well, and I mean more than a ‘Bible says ‘no’ so ‘no’ look.
I just hate the argument that if the church I go to has a gay priest/pastor, then I’ll ‘catch’ it as well…
Oh well – I imagine that most churches will wait until it’s a proper bun-fight before they do anything, so they’ll look reactionary again… or have some churches got some properly formed policies on the ‘issue’ already?
Comment by Toddy — May 24, 2008 @ 3:20 pm
Note to file: When you say the “gay priest thing” you might want to nuance it and call it “practising gay” priest so as to affirm the brothers with a predisposition to same-sex attraction who choose celibacy in obedience to God’s blueprint for human sexual relations; as opposed to practicing gay person whom God calls to flee sexual immorality along with all other single heterosexuals.
We ought also be sensitive to all in our congregation who experience same-sex attraction for whom this is not a hypothetical theological discussion but a personal struggle.
Gav
PS: for the record I am not all that excited about the Bishop thing either. What Anglicans have created is an adminstrational role to assist the diocese. It is an office of church government. The contemporary idea of bishop bears litte resemblance to Paul’s idea of bishop (presubter) in the pastoral letters. The consecration service for a bishop says some terrific things about their role and function. I have a pragmatic approach to bishops which means I can live with the idea of them in an administrative role.
On women’s issues I acknowledge different views inside the evangelical movements let alone others. My point here was that in liberal Anglican circles gay issues are closely put together women’s leadership issues as a matter of rights.
The women’s issue in church leadership is for another discussion. Maybe we could throw that around I would love to here the Baptist or Church of Christ view on such things… Blog on Hamo!
Gav.
PPSS sorry about the typos
PPPSSS Conservative views of women’s ministry don’t sideline women, it sets them off in a different mission directions. Like you Hamo, I have an energetic mission minded wife who has fantastic mission opportunities that I can’t even get near amongst women in our community. In our church though we take a conservative line on women preaching and teaching to mixed congregations, the women do fantastic ministry mission and evangelism amongst other women….
You purple wiggle you…
Gav – good point, but I’d be happy to be further informed/instructed re the ‘gay-priest’ thing generally, practicing or not.
For a non-practicing-celibacy-embracing-gay-priest-or-pastor, it will be a primary stumbling block in terms of lifestyle issues they need to contend with.
Nothing wrong with having stumbling blocks (some of my best friends have stumbling blocks) but the Western Church tends to look more favourably on stumbling blocks like working too hard, falling to the ‘demon-drink’, heck – even porn! But finding Mrs Johnson’s unsaved hubby a bit attractive will push some limits, if nothing has been put in place (policy wise) previous to it happening.
So to my original question – are there churches who have well established tried & tested policies on such matters?
Comment by Toddy — May 25, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Naturally it’ll be Gay priests next – after all the liberal rot started when they allowed black priests, now women priests, gay are the obvious next edge of the wedge and before you know it anyone will want to be able to preach about Jesus.
The very stones themselves – though obviously not the same stones as will be used in the stoning of the unrighteous women priests.
Seriously though – while I understand at some level the objections people have to opening up the priesthood to groups who have not held it before, it frightens me the vehemence with which some people denounce change – often in a church organisation that is not their own.
I reckon they ought to be bailing their own boat.
Comment by Grendel — May 22, 2008 @ 8:07 pm