Subject: Re: Women priests: will it happen in Aus?
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 17:12:29 -1000
From: Rowland Croucher <>
Organization: John Mark Ministries
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian

Michael Kennedy wrote:
>
> On Wed, 24 Dec 1997 09:26:15 -1000, Rowland Croucher
> <> wrote:
> >*** U.S. Anglicans split over women priests
> >
> >Conservative Episcopalians opposed to the ordination of women have
> >announced a formal split with the mainstream U.S. branch of the
> >church and said they were the true heirs to the Anglican tradition.
> >The conservatives, including several bishops, said in a statement
> >received Tuesday they had set up the Protestant Episcopal Church in
> >the United States of America, Inc., known in brief as PECUSA, Inc.
> >They disputed the credentials and authority of the mainstream U.S.
> >Episcopal or Anglican church based in New York and recognized by the
> >Archbishop of Canterbury, the spiritual leader of Anglicans around
> >the world. See
> >http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=6587045-9c8
>
> Hi Rowland,
>
> Actually I remember something similair being said about England, and
> the church of England.
>
> It was about three or four months ago.
>
> The story was that a large number clergy (Bishops included) where
> going to breakaway a form a new church due the extreme liberalism
> growing within that church. ( read women priests, etc)

My response is: what a pity. I think conservatives need liberals, and
vice-versa – though I would endorse the right of a congregation to call
pastors who fit with their particular theology.
>
> God Bless,
>
> Michael.

Garry and Jill Allen wrote:
>
> Rowland Croucher wrote:
> >
> > Michael Kennedy wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 24 Dec 1997 09:26:15 -1000, Rowland Croucher
> > > <> wrote:
> > > >*** U.S. Anglicans split over women priests
<>
> I think that the Bible teaches that a woman should not be the leader of
> a church congregation.

Two responses. On the issue of God’s creation / ‘brain sex’ etc. I’m
_conservative_: males, in general, are given by their Creator the gift of
initiating (in many fields – sex, protecting their loved ones, providing
(especially when their women are preoccupied with
pregnancy/childbirth/lactation) etc. etc.

However, and this is the essence of my Christian faith (pardon the
shouting):
GOD IS NOT A LEGALIST! When a woman, Deborah, is the best leader she
leads…

So it’s more than simply a matter of hermeneutics: it’s all about the kind
of
God you believe in.

And I like conservative Brethren scholar FFBruce’s comment, that the whole
issue in the NT. writings/context has to be viewed through the window of
Galatians 3:38…

(For a lengthier response, see the articles on my website)…

Michael Smith wrote:
>
> Callum Gibson wrote:
> >
> > In article <>,
<>
> I meant by splitting. Those who want women priests have them. Those
> who don’t, outlaw them. Both groups then get on with more important
> matters.
>
> It would be a shame if it came to that, but I raise the question: is
> splittiong worse then continuing with an internal battle which may never
> be resolvable? That’s not a rhetorical question: I don’t know the
> answer.

The answer is to be biblical and postmodern and affirm diversity, but
conservatives aren’t into that – too threatening.

Subject: Southern Baptists (was Re: Women priests: will it happen in Aus?
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 14:49:40 -1000
From: “Rowland C. Croucher” <>
Organization: John Mark Ministries
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian,alt.religion.christian.baptist

Ken Smith wrote:
>
> Rather a late response, but better late than never, as secular wisdom
> has it.
>
> “Rowland C. Croucher” <> writes:
>
> >Michael Smith wrote:
> >>
> >> Callum Gibson wrote:

Welcome back Ken: we need you here!!!
>
> Reminds me a bit of goings-on within the Southern baptists a few years
> ago.
> The fundamentalists (it would be more correct to label them that) won
> out over the conservatives.
> In this case the consevrvatives, generally, did not leave the
> denomination at the mercy of the fundamentalists, but are still working
> quietly to regain some of the lost diversity.

I was on the mailing list of the ‘moderates’ (as they’d prefer to be
called – not conservatives: BTW many SBC fundamentalists don’t like
being called that either 🙂 for a while. Watch carefully: the Christian
Century just arrived and tells me many SBC -affiliated churches in
Virginia are probably about to secede.

I’ll cross-post this to arcb to see if there’s any more light on this…

> On our way to Inala Baptist Church each Sunday morning we pass two
> Catholic churches, both of which have large congregations. One worship
> in the modern style (I have been there) while the other, avccording to
> the notice board, follows the traditional Latin rite.
> If Catholics in two adjoining suburbs can be as different as that, why
> can’t Protestants?

They are: except that Protestants don’t have the unifying force of
allegience to the Pope/Vatican. So they form 23,000-plus denominations
to celebrate their diversity 🙂

Subject: Re: Women priests: will it happen in Aus?
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 09:32:43 -1000
From: “Rowland C. Croucher” <>
Organization: John Mark Ministries
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian

Peter B. West wrote:
>
> Callum Gibson wrote:
> >
> > In article <>,
> > “Rowland C. Croucher” <> writes:
> > > Michael Smith wrote:

> In the article mentioned above, Alison Cotes laments that many of the
> best and brightest of the women who campaigned for women’s ordination
> have since left the Church in the general exodus. This should surprise
> no-one. The passion that drives these people is secular in origin and
> nature. When the victory is won, the demons have nothing to feed on,
> and they must look elsewhere. That they leave behind them divided and
> ruined congregations is a tribute to their master.

This touches a very complex issue. As some of you know, the original purpose
for our little ministry was to help clergy in transition. I have a ‘D&M’
conversation with one of these (mostly disillusioned) people each day.

Clergy and others like those referred to by Peter begin their faith-journey
idealistically. When the church does not live up to their ideals for it the
‘cognitive dissonance’ that results can be quite devastating.

One of my theories is that modern Western cultures do not prepare people for
trouble/
disillusionment (see Scott Peck’s The Road Less Traveled). So the ‘fall-out’
is a human problem first, a Christian/religious one second, maybe…

Michael Smith wrote:
>
> Rowland C. Croucher wrote:
> >
> > Michael Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > Callum Gibson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <>,
> > <>
> > > I meant by splitting. Those who want women priests have them. Those
> > > who don’t, outlaw them. Both groups then get on with more important
> > > matters.
> > >
> > > It would be a shame if it came to that, but I raise the question: is
> > > splittiong worse then continuing with an internal battle which may
never
> > > be resolvable? That’s not a rhetorical question: I don’t know the
> > > answer.
> >
> > The answer is to be biblical and postmodern and affirm diversity, but
> > conservatives aren’t into that – too threatening.
>
> Affirming diversity is important, but not at the expense of truth.

Put the words [my interpretation of] between the words ‘of’ and ‘truth’.
Would
you then still hold to this position?
>
> If a conservative believes strongly that women priests or any other
> issue is clearly wrong, then they need to stand up for that.

And then be gracious enough to live/worship with others who have a different
point of view.

Which, of course, raises another question: when does something become a
‘macro-issue’ which might be important enough to separate? Luther and Wesley
have helped us there…

Michael Smith wrote:
>
> Ken Smith wrote:
> >
> > Michael Smith <> writes:
<>
> Have you ever heard of a group called “Equal but Different”. This is a
> group of Christian Women who oppose the ordination of Women. Several of
> it’s founders are from my church. They’re all women, and none of the
> want to put women into any sort of servitude.
>
> Now there is certainly room to debate whether the bible *DOES* prohibit
> it. My best reading of verses like 1 Tim 2:12 is that it does prohibit
> it. If you believe different, then it is certainly fruitful to discuss
> the meaning.

My 2c worth: women _are_ equal but different. Men have been given by the
Creator a natural inclination towards initiative-taking; women to
responding. Hence the ancient prohibitions against women usurping men’s
‘God-given’ roles.

But – and this is more important – _God is not a legalist_. When women
are better at leading they lead (eg. Deborah). This is the key issue, I
feel: a theology of grace rather than a theology of gender…