14 forum messages posted by
Rosemary

It's a fairly urgent matter isn't it?  Especially for me at my age.  I don't feel welcome here at Fulcrum,  my questions are ignored,  in fact there's no acceptance amongst the leadership of Fulcrum  ..  or as Jody put it  ..  accommodation in the gospel sense of the word  ..  for myself and the thousands of other women like me who don't feel comfortable with WO.  Yet we're all going to meet in heaven,  when the matter will be completely irrelevent.  So how are we going to manage to minister alongside one another?  Because that is essential.  Should we all agree with Jody to feel accepted?  Should we all agree with me to feel accepted?   The answer to both questions is quite obviously no  ..  so what IS the next step forward?

Thank you James for that excellent link.  However I don't see from it any sense of "Thou shalt not."  The word Gerald Bray uses is 'innapropriate' whereas the word I used was 'mistaken.' I've no doubt his is the more correct term.

Surely those who believe that anyone holding my point of view should have the 'integrity' to leave the church,  must now answer the questions I put to Jody.

May I continue to serve the church I belong to and love,  am I welcome?

For some reason [unknown] I have been unable to post here for a few days,  however after Ian Paul's comment I wrote this ..

Thank you Ian for that explanation.  It surprises me because I haven't personally come across it,  which doesn't mean it hasn't been said of course.  I know that my Anglo Catholic brothers and sisters [for whom it often IS a first order issue] have a 'conscience' problem that I don't have,  but I've never heard any of them say that Scripture 'forbids' women to exercise authority in ministry.  I've certainly never heard it in evangelical circles.  If I thought for a moment there was a "Thou shalt not" involved anywhere,  it would obviously be a different matter. 

As it is,  I think WO is mistaken,  but NOT a first order issue. 

The church in all denominations is under God's Judgement at the moment and we should all concentrate on the task Jesus gave us.  The trouble is that we may not be permitted to do so because feelings are running so high at the moment!

Hello Jody,  my apologies,  but I still don't think that is what you're saying,  otherwise why would you ask the question?  However,  perhaps I didn't explain myself well,  that IS I'm afraid,  often the case!!  Let me enumerate..

1.  Those of us who are evangelical [so I'm not talking for or about my Anglo Catholic brothers and sisters] do not believe this is a first order issue.  Neither does the Windsor Report which stated that it is a matter of adiaphora.

2.  As it is a second order issue,  there is NO question about leaving the church or the communion,  even though I personally have a woman bishop.  If I left the church over this issue,  I would be declaring it a first order issue,  but it isn't and I'm not.

So you see,  we don't see the scriptural argument as 'viable enough.'  Far from it.  So we're back to trying to understand why you are asking this question.  I'm quite sure you understand both biblical perspectives,  so that cannot be what you're looking for in terms of an answer  ..  so what is it?

I'd also be obliged if you could explain what this means  ..  "What I hear you saying is that you don't recognise it as a valid interpretation - in that case why is it 'second order', what does this mean?  If WO is unbiblical and a sinful denial of the divinely established order, surely the official teaching of the CofE is anathema?"

1.  I hope I've now explained to your satisfaction why this is a second order issue.

2. Who said WO is unbiblical and sinful?

3. What is your understanding of the 'official teaching of the CofE' on this issue.  We appear to have reached differing conclusions.  Please include reports from both Lambeth and the Eames Report in your answer.

4. Are you saying this IS a first order issue?

I hope you'll forgive me for saying so Jody,  but that is an extremely messy statement surely?

No,  it doesn't follow that people stay within the Anglican church because they find it 'viable enough' from a scriptural point of view.  There are millions of us who believe it's a second order issue.  We think you're sincerely wrong,  but that it's much more important to reach the lost as Jesus has called us to do.  He called us into this communion,  are you saying He calls us to leave now?  Do you hear Him saying that?

I hear Simon saying that as Devil's Advocate [rather well I thought],  I hear many, many pro WO supporters saying that,  but is Jesus saying that?  Are you saying that?  Will the church be better,  more successful,  more wholesome,  less stressful if we leave?

Rosemary

True freedom surely,  is the freedom to choose to obey.

Unless we are reading two completely different documents Bishop Tom,  it's entirely voluntary.  If you don't want to be part of it,  no one is going to twist your arm, and I'm quite sure they don't mean to be 'deeply offensive.'

As I understand it,  the people who attended Gafcon had IMMENSE differences,  but they worked hard to find what their common ground was.  If you don't agree,  fine,  don't support them.  It's strange [to me] though, that you feel the need to condemn them.  

Thank you Erasmus for trying to bring some perspective into this conversation.  It's difficult,  because within the church,  where we should have known better,  women have generally not been valued for their gifts and talents.  Nor have they been considered as equals to their brothers in Christ,  especially in ministry where they can be so valuable.

For me,  the problem is that we have  ..  as you implied with a slightly different slant I think  ..  gone from the dual problems of male domination as opposed to dominion,  and women not standing firmly for their equality,  too far the other way, and now run the real risk of further damage to our church.

Here,  we have had few if any problems working within an Anglican province that ordains women,  even though biblically we disagree, but now that the issue of a woman Bishop faces us,  the problems become more severe.  So severe it may be necessary for our church to encourage us to resign.  What a pity that the church family we all love,  should be brought to such a pass,  but working alongside ordained women,  and working under the authority of a woman Bishop,  are indeed different equations,  and require Christian charity and love in a measure we haven't prepared for.  This page is evidence of that.

Fern,  thank you for your measured reply,  especially your second paragraph.  I think without a doubt the church HAS given the impression that it's misogynistic  ..  for centuries  ..  and that needs correcting urgently.  But I'm not convinced that we as women have yet found the Christian, or indeed the best way to address the problem.  Perhaps we could start by examining the best way we can 'serve' our church family and obey Jesus' call to mission?

Rosemary

Fern  ..  thank you for your reply.  Rosemary

Fern,  thank you for your interesting reply.  I don't think there's a 'mere' or 'merely' about our gender.  I think it's a matter for celebration.  However of more interest is your view of Genesis.  If I may,  I'd like to ask some questions so that I might better understand what you're saying.

1.  Are you saying that no women should be unmarried?  And as a corollary,  does that apply to the male gender too?

2.  Are you saying that the role of 'helper' only applies to married women,  but that the married woman may only 'help' her husband and no other  ..  and I'm not sure I understand where service to Jesus' family,  His church comes into this.

3.  If you believe this passage has no 'wider' application to 'mankind and womankind,'  is there somewhere in Scripture where you believe that IS demonstrated?

Clare,  thank you so much for your apology.  I understand the struggle you speak of  ..  I struggle too.  Deeply  ..  and feel I fail more often than I succeed.

I notice you too use the term 'women who want to submit to men'  ..  and am beginning to suspect this is something I don't understand, perhaps because we come from different countries and there's a cultural difference I'm unaware of.

I agree with you too,  about the perennial difficulties between the genders,  of finding the correct [in Christ] balance and path,  and not succumbing to the failures that are ours [all of us] by our fallen nature.  It can be fatally easy to excoriate men who exercise domination rather than the dominion they were given in Christ.  But it's also fatally easy not to look at the log in our own eye.  I do know that subordination is not the answer.

Jeremy,  I'm puzzled by your reply,  but I too would be interested in some figures,  are there any?  But what do you mean by 'submitted women' please?  I take it Jeremy is a man's name,  are you not a submitted man?