A comment suggesting I have been captious with my original post has led me to revise this post (and correct a biblical reference).
I would understand that the Sydney Diocese's policy of not ordaining women to the priesthood or the episcopacy is a policy of obedience to the Bible, especially to texts such as 1 Timothy 2:12.
It is somewhat surprising then to learn that a significant contribution to the huge loss suffered by the Diocese's investments during the recent months of world recession has been due to borrowing money. I quote from Archbishop Peter's letter to the Diocese about this difficult situation (italics mine):
"Firstly, I want you to know that we have suffered very significant losses to our diocesan capital. For several years now we have borrowed money to increase the amount invested. This resulted in greater than average returns. In fact, a special 20 million dollar distribution to help purchase land and build new churches was possible in 2007 because of this."
Another Bible text is Romans 13:8:
"Owe no one anything, except to love each other ..."
Right now the Diocese is living by that text literally for the letter continues:
"Our investment position is now stable. All bank debt has been repaid, investment risks have been significantly reduced and our liquidity position is very strong."
But one wonders if for a while the Diocese made a choice to either ignore Romans 13:8, or to follow a line of interpretation in which Romans 13:8 does not preclude borrowing (as argued in a comment below). If the latter, then the Diocese has not been inconsistent in its understanding of the Bible.
Nevertheless the question remains if one can soften the apparent literal sense of Romans 13:8 then might not one do this with another verse or two?
If the former, i.e. Romans 13:8 simply set to one side, then it could be argued that there is an inconsistency. Now in my view most if not all of us who seek to live as far as possible by the Bible do live inconsistently relative to the Bible. It is hard to be perfect! But when we realise we are inconsistent then it may be appropriate to do some soul-and-mind searching. One possible outcome is that we lower the emphasis we place on being 'biblical' and raise the emphasis on 'theological system' and thus honestly acknowledge that our lives are governed by a system of theology rather than the Bible. Many Christians live with debt (Visa, mortgage, car loan) because, in their minds, there is a system of theology which both permits this and explains the limited application of Romans 12:8 (to say nothing of the whole downer the Bible has on usury).
It would be interesting to learn from Sydney what its system of theology is which reconciles applications of 1 Timothy 2:12 (fairly literally, it seems) and of Romans 13:8 (not too literally, perhaps).
This question of 'biblical' versus 'theological system' is not an unimportant matter. In a few weeks time a significant development in the post GAFCON life of the Communion will take place when the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans in the UK and Ireland will be launched. As it happens, Archbishop Peter Jensen is one of the featured speakers.
Thus one can presume that a substantive call from this meeting will be for the Anglican churches of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland to be reformed to a standard of biblical orthodoxy. But what is 'biblical orthodoxy'? It is a clear, consistent system of theology coherent with the Bible. Many of us want to be biblically orthodox; but do many of us understand that it is difficult to achieve in practice? That difficulty is, I suggest, what the non-GAFCON part of the Communion understands, and inspires patience in the ongoing conversation among Communion partners over our controversies. It will be looking, I am sure, for signs from the inauguration event in London on 6th July that the immensity of the challenge of being biblically orthodox is understood!