In the beginning there was no Word, and besides that, there was no God for the Word to be with.
Nothing was made through the Word that was not, and everything was made without him.
Life was not in him, but from mistaken belief in him emerged the Delusion.
The Delusion shines with the dullness of darkness and as yet the light has not overcome it.
There was a man sent from some compelling force in the universe whose name was Charles. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness to the light.
The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world and the world was made in a way discovered by Charles and perfected by him, yet not everyone in the world was convinced of this.
He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his message, he gave the right to become children of the Enlightenment, who were born not of baptism, nor of tradition, and certainly not of the Bible, but of primal natural forces pulsating through their parents.
And the true word, the light seeking to overcome the Delusion became a traveller, and descended Down Under. And we in Christchurch will see his luminescence and hear his wisdom on March 11th.
By coincidence the Archbishop of York is in NZ about the same time (and in Christchurch 12th - 14th March). I do not suppose they will share a platform together, but surely it is possible to get them on the same TV or radio show?
Tomorrow I plan to post some thoughts on Dawkins, atheism, and belief in God today.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Friday, February 26, 2010
When Anglicans read Scripture ...
... we do so, or should do so with due care and humility. Thus, for instance, our orders of ministry (bishop, priest, deacon) we understand to be consistent with Scripture but not required by Scripture (and thus we acknowledge the valid claims of, say, Presbyterians to assert that their ministry orders are also consistent with Scripture). We follow the practice of baptizing the infants of believers because we understand this to be consistent with Scripture, an ancient practice of the church, and a sacramental action justified by theological argument of the Reformers. But we are not so silly as to assert that we are commanded directly and unequivocably in Scripture to so baptize.
Thus when we examine the question of 'headship', taken up in some comments below on my post A Successful Model of Ministry, particularly as Anglicans, we might ask careful questions of Scripture as to whether the principle of male headship is a principle required by Scripture or simply consistent with Scripture.
Here are some Scriptural facts which the principle of male headship as an organising principle for church life seems to overlook:
(1) In 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 the argument Paul weaves with reflections on God/Christ, Christ/man, man/woman leads to this conclusion, "Judge not for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? (11:13-15, ESV). Nothing is said here about leadership in the church, nor about women not preaching/teaching to a mixed gender congregation (indeed, it is presupposed in 11:5 that women will be praying and prophesying in mixed gender congregations). Further, as a matter of experience, the specific practice Paul urges here, women having covered heads and long hair, is not followed in most Anglican churches today, including most Anglican churches asserting the principle of male headship.
(2) In 1 Timothy 2:1-15 nothing is said about male headship in church or in the home.
(3) In Ephesians 5:21-33 it is clearly stated that 'the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church' (v. 23 ESV), but nothing in this passage (or its near equivalent in Colossians 3:18-19) mentions male headship in congregational life. In both Ephesians 5:23 and Colossians 1:18 the clear, direct, unequivocal statement about the 'head' of the church is that Christ is the head of the church.
That the combination of texts cited in (1) - (3) above is consistent with the principle of male headship as an organising principle for congregational life is not in doubt. But it is simply not the case that this principle is required by Scripture in general, or these passages in particular. Let's state this another way: nowhere in Paul's letters, and certainly not in 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy or Titus, is there a sustained theological argument aimed towards the singular conclusion that human heads of congregations must be male.
Further, it is exceedingly strange that the one thing these passages push very close to requiring* in respect of church life, the covering of the heads of women and that their hair be long (and men's hair be short) in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, is not required in many of the churches of God these days. Actually I know no Anglican congregations where this is required. (*I say 'push very close to requiring' because Paul himself in 1 Corinthians 11:16 seems to hold back from saying 'this must happen'). On what basis is this clear outcome of the passage minimised and the unclear deduction of the principle of male headship maximised?
(As an aside, it is worth noting that in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 Paul mounts a powerful theological argument for a custom in respect of clothing and hair length, which most of us feel free to ignore in a time and place which is different to first century Corinth, but in 1 Timothy 2:12-15, when evangelicals raise the question whether the ruling drawn from this passage (Woman may not teach or rule men) applies beyond the particularities of ancient Ephesus, evangelicals adhering to the principle of male headship insist that Paul's supporting theological argument (i.e. 1 Timothy 2:13-14) means we cannot ignore the ruling!?)
Back to the principle of male headship as an organising principle for congregational life: it may be claimed as a principle which is consistent with Scripture; it may not be claimed as a principle required by Scripture.
Finally there is this consideration: as the principle of male headship is being applied in Anglican churches we are finding these developments in practice. (1) An absolute law that no woman may ever or in any circumstance teach or lead a mixed gender congregation. (That is, the application of the principle is not (say) 'Ideally congregations would be led and taught by men, but we acknowledge that in practice it is hard to achieve this in all congregations on all Sundays of all years'. No, it is an absolute prohibition.) (2) A response to our time in which women are being educated theologically and upskilled practically in the arts of teaching and leadership whereby women's conventions are being organised at which the best of women speakers speak to women. Ironically this means that there are women speakers emerging with well recognised gifts of teaching and leadership, including the ability not present in all teachers, of holding a large audience, yet whose gifts are not transferred into mixed gender congregations.
The simple question to ask of Scripture is this: if the principle of male headship is not required of Scripture, on what other basis may we understand 'I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man' to be an absolute ruling governing the life of the church in every time, place, circumstance and culture. Is it conceivable that Paul the affirmer of Phoebe, Prisca, Euodia, Syntyche and Junia, as well as the acknowledger of women praying and prophesying audibly in congregational worship, intended his ruling in 1 Timothy 2:12 to mean that an able female teacher of Scripture in the twenty-first century - so able, for instance, that she can speak profitably to hundreds of women at a convention or can write down her teaching clearly and convincingly in pamphlets or books accessible to men and women - could never, ever teach a mixed gender congregation?
I will only permit comments arguing against this post from members of churches where women have long hair covered when they worship :).
Thus when we examine the question of 'headship', taken up in some comments below on my post A Successful Model of Ministry, particularly as Anglicans, we might ask careful questions of Scripture as to whether the principle of male headship is a principle required by Scripture or simply consistent with Scripture.
Here are some Scriptural facts which the principle of male headship as an organising principle for church life seems to overlook:
(1) In 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 the argument Paul weaves with reflections on God/Christ, Christ/man, man/woman leads to this conclusion, "Judge not for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? (11:13-15, ESV). Nothing is said here about leadership in the church, nor about women not preaching/teaching to a mixed gender congregation (indeed, it is presupposed in 11:5 that women will be praying and prophesying in mixed gender congregations). Further, as a matter of experience, the specific practice Paul urges here, women having covered heads and long hair, is not followed in most Anglican churches today, including most Anglican churches asserting the principle of male headship.
(2) In 1 Timothy 2:1-15 nothing is said about male headship in church or in the home.
(3) In Ephesians 5:21-33 it is clearly stated that 'the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church' (v. 23 ESV), but nothing in this passage (or its near equivalent in Colossians 3:18-19) mentions male headship in congregational life. In both Ephesians 5:23 and Colossians 1:18 the clear, direct, unequivocal statement about the 'head' of the church is that Christ is the head of the church.
That the combination of texts cited in (1) - (3) above is consistent with the principle of male headship as an organising principle for congregational life is not in doubt. But it is simply not the case that this principle is required by Scripture in general, or these passages in particular. Let's state this another way: nowhere in Paul's letters, and certainly not in 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy or Titus, is there a sustained theological argument aimed towards the singular conclusion that human heads of congregations must be male.
Further, it is exceedingly strange that the one thing these passages push very close to requiring* in respect of church life, the covering of the heads of women and that their hair be long (and men's hair be short) in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, is not required in many of the churches of God these days. Actually I know no Anglican congregations where this is required. (*I say 'push very close to requiring' because Paul himself in 1 Corinthians 11:16 seems to hold back from saying 'this must happen'). On what basis is this clear outcome of the passage minimised and the unclear deduction of the principle of male headship maximised?
(As an aside, it is worth noting that in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 Paul mounts a powerful theological argument for a custom in respect of clothing and hair length, which most of us feel free to ignore in a time and place which is different to first century Corinth, but in 1 Timothy 2:12-15, when evangelicals raise the question whether the ruling drawn from this passage (Woman may not teach or rule men) applies beyond the particularities of ancient Ephesus, evangelicals adhering to the principle of male headship insist that Paul's supporting theological argument (i.e. 1 Timothy 2:13-14) means we cannot ignore the ruling!?)
Back to the principle of male headship as an organising principle for congregational life: it may be claimed as a principle which is consistent with Scripture; it may not be claimed as a principle required by Scripture.
Finally there is this consideration: as the principle of male headship is being applied in Anglican churches we are finding these developments in practice. (1) An absolute law that no woman may ever or in any circumstance teach or lead a mixed gender congregation. (That is, the application of the principle is not (say) 'Ideally congregations would be led and taught by men, but we acknowledge that in practice it is hard to achieve this in all congregations on all Sundays of all years'. No, it is an absolute prohibition.) (2) A response to our time in which women are being educated theologically and upskilled practically in the arts of teaching and leadership whereby women's conventions are being organised at which the best of women speakers speak to women. Ironically this means that there are women speakers emerging with well recognised gifts of teaching and leadership, including the ability not present in all teachers, of holding a large audience, yet whose gifts are not transferred into mixed gender congregations.
The simple question to ask of Scripture is this: if the principle of male headship is not required of Scripture, on what other basis may we understand 'I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man' to be an absolute ruling governing the life of the church in every time, place, circumstance and culture. Is it conceivable that Paul the affirmer of Phoebe, Prisca, Euodia, Syntyche and Junia, as well as the acknowledger of women praying and prophesying audibly in congregational worship, intended his ruling in 1 Timothy 2:12 to mean that an able female teacher of Scripture in the twenty-first century - so able, for instance, that she can speak profitably to hundreds of women at a convention or can write down her teaching clearly and convincingly in pamphlets or books accessible to men and women - could never, ever teach a mixed gender congregation?
I will only permit comments arguing against this post from members of churches where women have long hair covered when they worship :).
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Scriptural unity for the Anglican Communion
One of the phrases of Anglican life which we can neglect occurs in the Thirty-Nine Articles. It is 'contrary to God's Word written', in Article 20, Of the Authority of the Church. The full article reads:
"The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: And yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation."
Whatever view Anglican churches around the Communion take on the role of the 39A, the fact is that we all adhere to Scripture as the document at the heart of our life, especially of our weekly liturgical worship and the daily office. Scripture is only meaningful if it is not only read, but also applied to our lives. Fundamentally, to live Anglicanly 'contrary to God's Word written' would be to unravel Anglicanism.
Hence it is crucial to the future of each Anglican church as well as to the Communion as a whole that we not only read Scripture, but also live by it, which necessarily means we do work on interpreting the Bible so that we live consistent with Scripture and not contrary to it.
Thus we observe the following taking place around the Communion at this time. (1) Some situations in which Anglicans are waking up to the fact that this work has been neglected and must now be done before it is too late: Bishop Pierre Whalon, in a post noted below, is the siren sounder on this for TEC. That TEC is not as far down this pathway as some of us have supposed is intriguingly represented by the ifs, buts, and maybes of this resolution of the Diocese of Virginia! (2) Robust debate on the internet (at least) about whether ordaining women as presbyters and bishops is contrary to Scripture or not, with this bite to the debate, How will the Church of England introduce women bishops into its life?
With respect to that question for the C of E I suggest it would be timely to renew engagement with the scriptural basis of Anglo-Catholicism. I should quickly say that much of Anglo-Catholicism (as with much of Roman Catholicism) is consistent with Scripture. But is it all? I raise this question because if the way forward for the C of E introducing women bishops is also to preserve a request for at least two sectors of its life (e.g. Forward in Faith, Reform movements) to not have to experience the sacramental or preaching ministries of women bishops, a bare minimum reason for positively responding to the request is that Anglo-Catholicism adheres to the spirit and principle of Article 20, that we should do nothing contrary to God's Word written.
Mutatis mutandis, the question needs to be asked of Reform, in the light, for instance, of Tim Harris' comment in a post below, whether it is in fact ministering contrary to God's Word written, at least inasmuch as it may sincerely but mistakenly believe that the principle of male headship is taught in Scripture. Is the establishment of a ministry based on the principle of male headship, allied with a request to the church to preserve this ministry consistent with Scripture or contrary to it?
There is work to be done. Careful, painstaking exegetical and hermeneutical work. But it would be worth doing. Christian unity, ultimately, is unity around shared truth. The distance, for instance, between Reform and the (general tendency of the) Church of England might be better overcome by returning again to the study of Scripture rather than by legal arrangements made under the threat of withdrawal of funding.
In one sense I agree with those critics of the Covenant who say that it will not bring about unity in the Anglican Communion. True unity in the Communion will not be achieved while individual member Anglican churches are not united. The unity of the Church of England and the unity of Anglicanism in North America is a concern for us all. A key step forward is to return to the study of Scripture. My general point here is that we may need to study it with greater intensity and care than we have hitherto done so.
"The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: And yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation."
Whatever view Anglican churches around the Communion take on the role of the 39A, the fact is that we all adhere to Scripture as the document at the heart of our life, especially of our weekly liturgical worship and the daily office. Scripture is only meaningful if it is not only read, but also applied to our lives. Fundamentally, to live Anglicanly 'contrary to God's Word written' would be to unravel Anglicanism.
Hence it is crucial to the future of each Anglican church as well as to the Communion as a whole that we not only read Scripture, but also live by it, which necessarily means we do work on interpreting the Bible so that we live consistent with Scripture and not contrary to it.
Thus we observe the following taking place around the Communion at this time. (1) Some situations in which Anglicans are waking up to the fact that this work has been neglected and must now be done before it is too late: Bishop Pierre Whalon, in a post noted below, is the siren sounder on this for TEC. That TEC is not as far down this pathway as some of us have supposed is intriguingly represented by the ifs, buts, and maybes of this resolution of the Diocese of Virginia! (2) Robust debate on the internet (at least) about whether ordaining women as presbyters and bishops is contrary to Scripture or not, with this bite to the debate, How will the Church of England introduce women bishops into its life?
With respect to that question for the C of E I suggest it would be timely to renew engagement with the scriptural basis of Anglo-Catholicism. I should quickly say that much of Anglo-Catholicism (as with much of Roman Catholicism) is consistent with Scripture. But is it all? I raise this question because if the way forward for the C of E introducing women bishops is also to preserve a request for at least two sectors of its life (e.g. Forward in Faith, Reform movements) to not have to experience the sacramental or preaching ministries of women bishops, a bare minimum reason for positively responding to the request is that Anglo-Catholicism adheres to the spirit and principle of Article 20, that we should do nothing contrary to God's Word written.
Mutatis mutandis, the question needs to be asked of Reform, in the light, for instance, of Tim Harris' comment in a post below, whether it is in fact ministering contrary to God's Word written, at least inasmuch as it may sincerely but mistakenly believe that the principle of male headship is taught in Scripture. Is the establishment of a ministry based on the principle of male headship, allied with a request to the church to preserve this ministry consistent with Scripture or contrary to it?
There is work to be done. Careful, painstaking exegetical and hermeneutical work. But it would be worth doing. Christian unity, ultimately, is unity around shared truth. The distance, for instance, between Reform and the (general tendency of the) Church of England might be better overcome by returning again to the study of Scripture rather than by legal arrangements made under the threat of withdrawal of funding.
In one sense I agree with those critics of the Covenant who say that it will not bring about unity in the Anglican Communion. True unity in the Communion will not be achieved while individual member Anglican churches are not united. The unity of the Church of England and the unity of Anglicanism in North America is a concern for us all. A key step forward is to return to the study of Scripture. My general point here is that we may need to study it with greater intensity and care than we have hitherto done so.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
A successful model of ministry
A couple of posts below a debate started about various things to do with the continuing question within Anglican evangelicalism of whether women may be ordained to the priesthood or the episcopacy. In the course of that debate some comments persisted in making the claim that what Scripture teaches about women in ministry, male headship etc is 'plain'. My attention was also drawn to a pamphlet published by Reform and written by Carrie Sandom, a member of the Reform executive council, in which the case is set out for an approach to women's ministry in which women always work under the leadership of a man, and minister to women, youth and children, but not to men. This not only being in accordance with Scripture but also important for the encouragement, if not prodding-into-action of men to take up their God-ordained responsibilities.
Consequently I have read two pamphlets by Carrie Sandom. One is entitled The Role of Women in the Local Church, the other is entitled The Biblical Pattern for Women's Ministry - Limiting or Liberating?
The first thing we can and should say is that the pattern for ministry where a man is always leader, a staff team includes women, and women in ministry exclusively focus their service on women, youth and children, is having extraordinary success around the world. Associated with this pattern (in my experience) is careful attention to sound ministry of the Word, strong commitment to excellence in ministry, special attention to family life, including forming and running great Sunday Schools and Youth Groups. One important outcome of this pattern of ministry is a special emphasis on ministry to men in an environment where male leadership is exercised without apology: men get involved in these churches and it is true (in my experience) that when the father/husband is involved there is a greater chance of the remainder of the family joining in than when only the mother/wife is involved.
My question is whether this pattern of ministry should be just that, a pattern of ministry, one which can be followed profitably in many churches, or a rigid rule of ministry which admits of no exceptions? My answer is that it is the former not the latter. But that answer is not the answer of some of the commenters on the post below, nor does it appear to be the answer of Reform within the Church of England. On the Reform approach no women should be a presbyter or bishop: there are no exceptional women (Deborahs and Huldahs of our day) who might be considered, nor are their exceptional circumstances in which consideration might be given to appointing a women as ministry team leader. I do not mind being criticised for being critical of this approach, but I hope it might be conceded that such rigidity in application of understanding Scripture bears careful scrutiny. After all it is rare in the New Testament for any rules to be laid down which admit of no exceptions (or of no change as the circumstances of life change).
Reading Carrie Sandom's pamphlets I am struck by several things which are of interest as I have followed the comments made on the post below.
(1) The question, already voiced in some British blogs, of the grounds on which a women may not teach men verbally but may teach them through writing (as Carrie undoubtedly does in these pamphlets). Where in Scripture is this distinction made?
(2) The question of when a child becomes a man. In the pattern above women may teach other women and may teach children but not men. I notice that in the second of the pamphlets mentioned above, Carrie says, "although the CYFA venture I help lead means I am involved in teaching teenagers of both sexes". There are various definitions of 'child'. I understand, for example, that a UN definition is 'under 18'. But others might demur. Young men, not children, for example drive cars at the age of 16. It seems strange (on the pattern being promoted in the pamphlet) that a woman may teach young men but not older men.
(3) Is the teaching of the Bible 'plain' on matters concerning ministry, marriage, and headship? I do not think it is. Some of my critics think it is plain. But I am pleased to find that Carrie Sandom agrees with me and not my critics. Read the first pamphlet cited above and note that at the end of the pamphlet is a section entitled 'More difficult passages to consider'. She cites 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, 14:26-35, 1 Timothy 2:14, and 2:15. Then note the frequent use of the word "seems" through each explanation given, as well as 'some would argue' in one explanation. In other words, some of the key texts are not plain to understand. Not only do they require explanation, but the explanation is given with tentative language.
(4) Noting that no passage alone in the New Testament intentionally teaches "the Biblical principle of male headship which is to be modelled in the church" - it is a teaching we deduce from reading several passages together, is it appropriate to elevate the principle of male headship to the status of 'God's law'?
In the pamphlet The Role of Women in the Local Church, the explanation of 1 Timothy 2:14 says this,
"Paul has just warned Timothy to avoid the false teaching of two men (1 Tim 1:19-20) so this cannot mean that women are more likely to lead the church into error - if that were so why would Paul encourage them to teach women? Verse 14 seems to follow straight on from the reasoning of v13 and serves as an example of the disorder that ensues when God’s law is disobeyed."
The phrase 'God's law' here begs a number of questions about the nature and character of God's law in the New Testament era, to say nothing of the question of whether the principle of male headship which we deduce from Scripture is properly described as 'God's law'.
It is possible, in other words, that a very successful model for ministry in the church, organised around the principle of male headship, strains credibility when it offers a theological justification for the model. In so far as that justification is represented in the two pamphlets cited above I remain unconvinced that it has been achieved.
Please, dear readers, note that raising these questions is primarily about the rigid imposition of the principle of male headship. I am as keen as anyone on great male leaders leading churches, running youth groups, taking up responsibilities in public prayer and so forth. I accept entirely that the future life and health of the church depends on men being involved as well as women. But this passion and commitment to see men in church does not require the rigid imposition of a model in which women may not lead or teach men. Christ came to set us free from the law! We should view with the utmost care any attempt by any church to lay down a new law of God.
Consequently I have read two pamphlets by Carrie Sandom. One is entitled The Role of Women in the Local Church, the other is entitled The Biblical Pattern for Women's Ministry - Limiting or Liberating?
The first thing we can and should say is that the pattern for ministry where a man is always leader, a staff team includes women, and women in ministry exclusively focus their service on women, youth and children, is having extraordinary success around the world. Associated with this pattern (in my experience) is careful attention to sound ministry of the Word, strong commitment to excellence in ministry, special attention to family life, including forming and running great Sunday Schools and Youth Groups. One important outcome of this pattern of ministry is a special emphasis on ministry to men in an environment where male leadership is exercised without apology: men get involved in these churches and it is true (in my experience) that when the father/husband is involved there is a greater chance of the remainder of the family joining in than when only the mother/wife is involved.
My question is whether this pattern of ministry should be just that, a pattern of ministry, one which can be followed profitably in many churches, or a rigid rule of ministry which admits of no exceptions? My answer is that it is the former not the latter. But that answer is not the answer of some of the commenters on the post below, nor does it appear to be the answer of Reform within the Church of England. On the Reform approach no women should be a presbyter or bishop: there are no exceptional women (Deborahs and Huldahs of our day) who might be considered, nor are their exceptional circumstances in which consideration might be given to appointing a women as ministry team leader. I do not mind being criticised for being critical of this approach, but I hope it might be conceded that such rigidity in application of understanding Scripture bears careful scrutiny. After all it is rare in the New Testament for any rules to be laid down which admit of no exceptions (or of no change as the circumstances of life change).
Reading Carrie Sandom's pamphlets I am struck by several things which are of interest as I have followed the comments made on the post below.
(1) The question, already voiced in some British blogs, of the grounds on which a women may not teach men verbally but may teach them through writing (as Carrie undoubtedly does in these pamphlets). Where in Scripture is this distinction made?
(2) The question of when a child becomes a man. In the pattern above women may teach other women and may teach children but not men. I notice that in the second of the pamphlets mentioned above, Carrie says, "although the CYFA venture I help lead means I am involved in teaching teenagers of both sexes". There are various definitions of 'child'. I understand, for example, that a UN definition is 'under 18'. But others might demur. Young men, not children, for example drive cars at the age of 16. It seems strange (on the pattern being promoted in the pamphlet) that a woman may teach young men but not older men.
(3) Is the teaching of the Bible 'plain' on matters concerning ministry, marriage, and headship? I do not think it is. Some of my critics think it is plain. But I am pleased to find that Carrie Sandom agrees with me and not my critics. Read the first pamphlet cited above and note that at the end of the pamphlet is a section entitled 'More difficult passages to consider'. She cites 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, 14:26-35, 1 Timothy 2:14, and 2:15. Then note the frequent use of the word "seems" through each explanation given, as well as 'some would argue' in one explanation. In other words, some of the key texts are not plain to understand. Not only do they require explanation, but the explanation is given with tentative language.
(4) Noting that no passage alone in the New Testament intentionally teaches "the Biblical principle of male headship which is to be modelled in the church" - it is a teaching we deduce from reading several passages together, is it appropriate to elevate the principle of male headship to the status of 'God's law'?
In the pamphlet The Role of Women in the Local Church, the explanation of 1 Timothy 2:14 says this,
"Paul has just warned Timothy to avoid the false teaching of two men (1 Tim 1:19-20) so this cannot mean that women are more likely to lead the church into error - if that were so why would Paul encourage them to teach women? Verse 14 seems to follow straight on from the reasoning of v13 and serves as an example of the disorder that ensues when God’s law is disobeyed."
The phrase 'God's law' here begs a number of questions about the nature and character of God's law in the New Testament era, to say nothing of the question of whether the principle of male headship which we deduce from Scripture is properly described as 'God's law'.
It is possible, in other words, that a very successful model for ministry in the church, organised around the principle of male headship, strains credibility when it offers a theological justification for the model. In so far as that justification is represented in the two pamphlets cited above I remain unconvinced that it has been achieved.
Please, dear readers, note that raising these questions is primarily about the rigid imposition of the principle of male headship. I am as keen as anyone on great male leaders leading churches, running youth groups, taking up responsibilities in public prayer and so forth. I accept entirely that the future life and health of the church depends on men being involved as well as women. But this passion and commitment to see men in church does not require the rigid imposition of a model in which women may not lead or teach men. Christ came to set us free from the law! We should view with the utmost care any attempt by any church to lay down a new law of God.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
How to grow declining churches?
Perhaps unexpectedly we get an answer to the question in the title from the Episcopal New Service (h/t Episcopal Cafe). In Mary Schjonberg's report is an honesty about decline in TEC stats which will be pleasing to those critics (within TEC, by the way) who feel that TEC's declining stats may, at times, be hidden from sight (my italics):
"The Episcopal Church's Executive Council heard here Feb. 21 that church membership and Sunday attendance continued to decline in 2008, but also heard a call for the church to promote knowledge of the characteristics of growing congregations.
During his statistic-laden hour-long report, Kirk Hadaway, the church's program officer for congregational research, told the council that congregations grow when they are in growing communities; have a clear mission and purpose; follow up with visitors; have strong leadership; and are involved in outreach and evangelism.
Congregations decline, he said, when their membership is older and predominantly female; are in conflict, particularly over leadership and where worship is "rote, predictable and uninspiring."
.... Hadaway suggested that "if we're going to turn this around -- or at least turn around the decline -- more attention needs to be paid to the things that result in growth, rather than to the broader cultural factors that are affecting our current patterns." Those cultural factors include such things as an aging population with declining birthrates and an increase in the number of Americans who claim no religious affiliation."
To which, a little voice from the Antipodes says, 'Yes'! I think, even in our different cultural milieu, that Kirk Hadaway's analysis and diagnosis is spot on. I would expand on one point. When Kirk says, "have a clear mission and purpose" I suggest the preaching needs to reflect that in a compelling manner. As I (settling into a new diocese) tour round parishes I am finding that where I am most encouraged and inspired by what I experience on a Sunday (and, thanks be to God, there is much encouragement) the preacher presents a compelling message. I want to come back to hear more next week compellingness!
Churches are growing in the West. Churches are declining in the West. Sometimes I am amazed at how little the latter desire to learn from the former. Kirk Hadaway rightly points us away from anxiety about cultural factors towards learning from 'the things that result in growth'.
POSTSCRIPT: Bosco Peters at Liturgy reflects on this report with perceptive insight.
POST-POSTSCRIPT: "But it’s as plain as day that en masse the American bishops are catastrophically failing at that core task — as indeed are their colleagues in the other mainline denominations. In the parlous state of today’s Episcopal church, every dime a diocese spends and every minute of a bishop’s working day needs to be focused on local congregations. The church is melting before their eyes and many bishops seem to be passively watching it happen; at most they hope to manage decline as smoothly as possible."
Just another critic from within TEC ... Walter Russell Mead!
"The Episcopal Church's Executive Council heard here Feb. 21 that church membership and Sunday attendance continued to decline in 2008, but also heard a call for the church to promote knowledge of the characteristics of growing congregations.
During his statistic-laden hour-long report, Kirk Hadaway, the church's program officer for congregational research, told the council that congregations grow when they are in growing communities; have a clear mission and purpose; follow up with visitors; have strong leadership; and are involved in outreach and evangelism.
Congregations decline, he said, when their membership is older and predominantly female; are in conflict, particularly over leadership and where worship is "rote, predictable and uninspiring."
.... Hadaway suggested that "if we're going to turn this around -- or at least turn around the decline -- more attention needs to be paid to the things that result in growth, rather than to the broader cultural factors that are affecting our current patterns." Those cultural factors include such things as an aging population with declining birthrates and an increase in the number of Americans who claim no religious affiliation."
To which, a little voice from the Antipodes says, 'Yes'! I think, even in our different cultural milieu, that Kirk Hadaway's analysis and diagnosis is spot on. I would expand on one point. When Kirk says, "have a clear mission and purpose" I suggest the preaching needs to reflect that in a compelling manner. As I (settling into a new diocese) tour round parishes I am finding that where I am most encouraged and inspired by what I experience on a Sunday (and, thanks be to God, there is much encouragement) the preacher presents a compelling message. I want to come back to hear more next week compellingness!
Churches are growing in the West. Churches are declining in the West. Sometimes I am amazed at how little the latter desire to learn from the former. Kirk Hadaway rightly points us away from anxiety about cultural factors towards learning from 'the things that result in growth'.
POSTSCRIPT: Bosco Peters at Liturgy reflects on this report with perceptive insight.
POST-POSTSCRIPT: "But it’s as plain as day that en masse the American bishops are catastrophically failing at that core task — as indeed are their colleagues in the other mainline denominations. In the parlous state of today’s Episcopal church, every dime a diocese spends and every minute of a bishop’s working day needs to be focused on local congregations. The church is melting before their eyes and many bishops seem to be passively watching it happen; at most they hope to manage decline as smoothly as possible."
Just another critic from within TEC ... Walter Russell Mead!
Monday, February 22, 2010
A Good Childhood
Tonight (Monday) two new ventures for Theology House, Christchurch begin. At Theology House itself we will host the first audio conference for Christchurch based theology students enrolled with Otago University. It is a small beginning - a few students and just one course this semester out of a possible four - a small beginning, that is, for TH being Christchurch host - Otago has delivered distance teaching via audio conferences for years. But I am looking forward to this start: I love theological teaching. Although I won't be teaching anything, I am glad to have the opportunity to facilitate this new opportunity for theological learning.
Down the road, at St Margaret's College - an Anglican secondary school with an amazing chapel-in-the-round capable of seating 500 or so - the first of a six part conference begins on A Good Childhood. The six weeks will explore a variety of topics related to the bringing up of children in the context of NZ society - a society sadly which has seen over recent years some appalling treatment of children, including callous murders, at odds with living in a sub tropical paradise. One of the things which gives me special pleasure about this conference, which, I should hasten to add, I have had hardly anything to do with organising - it was set well in motion before I arrived at TH - is recognising that two of the speakers demonstrate a particular faithfulness to God. Let me explain.
Many years ago when I was an undergraduate student I was involved not only with the local Christian Union, but also with the national evangelical student movement known as TSCF (Tertiary Students Christian Fellowship). In the context of conferences and council meetings I got to know many other Christian students. In those years, under the leadership of one of the most inspiring Christian leaders I have ever known, Gavin MacIntosh, a strong theme woven through talks and Bible studies was the importance of being Christians in the world as well as in the church. God was calling some of us to church ministry and to overseas mission, but God was also calling some of us to be Christian teachers, doctors, accountants, etc. We had a clear understanding of what it meant to be salt of the earth and light to the world: God's mission was everywhere and for every Christian in every sphere of life.
Well, what has happened since then, now some thirty years later? Unexpectedly we have scattered to the four corners of the earth. Some have become ministers and missionaries. Most of us (as far as I can tell) have settled into life in the usual ways - married, with children, mortgages, worries, local church responsibilities. In some cases the ideals that we would marry a wonderful Christian partner and live happily ever after have been shattered. Sadly, some of us are no longer involved in visible church involvement. A few among the circle of those years have nurtured the particular flame of those years, of being a Christian in the professions, working diligently and visibly in society, seeking to influence society from the vantage point of being the best we could be in the sphere into which God has called us.
Two of those contemporaries are among the dozen or so people who will speak during the next six weeks. They stand at the top of their professions which, as it happens, are directly concerned with the well-being of children and youth. I am looking forward to hearing them, and I thank God for their faithfulness to his calling. That thankfulness also extends southwards - one of the professors of theology at Otago is another contemporary from those years!
Down the road, at St Margaret's College - an Anglican secondary school with an amazing chapel-in-the-round capable of seating 500 or so - the first of a six part conference begins on A Good Childhood. The six weeks will explore a variety of topics related to the bringing up of children in the context of NZ society - a society sadly which has seen over recent years some appalling treatment of children, including callous murders, at odds with living in a sub tropical paradise. One of the things which gives me special pleasure about this conference, which, I should hasten to add, I have had hardly anything to do with organising - it was set well in motion before I arrived at TH - is recognising that two of the speakers demonstrate a particular faithfulness to God. Let me explain.
Many years ago when I was an undergraduate student I was involved not only with the local Christian Union, but also with the national evangelical student movement known as TSCF (Tertiary Students Christian Fellowship). In the context of conferences and council meetings I got to know many other Christian students. In those years, under the leadership of one of the most inspiring Christian leaders I have ever known, Gavin MacIntosh, a strong theme woven through talks and Bible studies was the importance of being Christians in the world as well as in the church. God was calling some of us to church ministry and to overseas mission, but God was also calling some of us to be Christian teachers, doctors, accountants, etc. We had a clear understanding of what it meant to be salt of the earth and light to the world: God's mission was everywhere and for every Christian in every sphere of life.
Well, what has happened since then, now some thirty years later? Unexpectedly we have scattered to the four corners of the earth. Some have become ministers and missionaries. Most of us (as far as I can tell) have settled into life in the usual ways - married, with children, mortgages, worries, local church responsibilities. In some cases the ideals that we would marry a wonderful Christian partner and live happily ever after have been shattered. Sadly, some of us are no longer involved in visible church involvement. A few among the circle of those years have nurtured the particular flame of those years, of being a Christian in the professions, working diligently and visibly in society, seeking to influence society from the vantage point of being the best we could be in the sphere into which God has called us.
Two of those contemporaries are among the dozen or so people who will speak during the next six weeks. They stand at the top of their professions which, as it happens, are directly concerned with the well-being of children and youth. I am looking forward to hearing them, and I thank God for their faithfulness to his calling. That thankfulness also extends southwards - one of the professors of theology at Otago is another contemporary from those years!
Saturday, February 20, 2010
From bad arguments to possible renegade action against women bishops in England
Rachel Marzselek very helpfully reproduces an excellent letter by Matthew Grayshon in the CEN challenging Rod Thomas'/Reform's recent letter which threatened this and that should women bishops become a reality in the C of E. I have been a little involved in a thread on The Ugley Vicar where there is also concern about women bishops, and have noticed that David Ould has taken Christina Rees of WATCH to task. One constant theme of this kind of evangelical concern is that the arguments for women in presbyteral and episcopal ministry are unscriptural and thus inadequate because cultural, experiential or otherwise. The letter cited above is a very good response to these concerns. I have another.
Those against the ordination of women to be presbyters or bishops are (logically) confident that their churches conform to Paul's vision for the church. But suppose Paul were to write to the Reform churches in the Church of England today. When he got to the 16th chapter which women would he address and salute their ministry? Who is the Phoebe who would be first to be named and the Prisca who would be second to be named? The fact is that in 21st century Reform type ministries, although women are involved in ministry (virtually always as ministers to women), they are fairly anonymous. But women in the Pauline mission and churches were not anonymous! Is there further work to do on understanding the full implications of Paul's whole corpus of writing on church life? As the letter writer cited above says,
"We are trusted with an emerging pattern not a fixed pattern."
Then, Julian Mann of Cranmer's Curate, blows the whistle on "Plans involving 'senior figures' are now underway to consecrate a group of Conservative Evangelical bishops for the UK". (Perhaps everyone knows about this over in the UK so it is not strictly blowing the whistle, but it is the first I have seen mention of it in recent months). But maybe that explains the sudden surge of internet interest in these matters!
Those against the ordination of women to be presbyters or bishops are (logically) confident that their churches conform to Paul's vision for the church. But suppose Paul were to write to the Reform churches in the Church of England today. When he got to the 16th chapter which women would he address and salute their ministry? Who is the Phoebe who would be first to be named and the Prisca who would be second to be named? The fact is that in 21st century Reform type ministries, although women are involved in ministry (virtually always as ministers to women), they are fairly anonymous. But women in the Pauline mission and churches were not anonymous! Is there further work to do on understanding the full implications of Paul's whole corpus of writing on church life? As the letter writer cited above says,
"We are trusted with an emerging pattern not a fixed pattern."
Then, Julian Mann of Cranmer's Curate, blows the whistle on "Plans involving 'senior figures' are now underway to consecrate a group of Conservative Evangelical bishops for the UK". (Perhaps everyone knows about this over in the UK so it is not strictly blowing the whistle, but it is the first I have seen mention of it in recent months). But maybe that explains the sudden surge of internet interest in these matters!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)