davidould.net

non angelus, sed anglus!

Australia

stuff about Australia

Sunday, May 11, 2008

Mothers’ Day

today is Mothers’ Day here in Australia. This afternoon I took a call from a parishioner who told me that their adult daughter had miscarried at 10 weeks.

Like Sandy, I’m glad I’m a Calvinist. The idea that God was unable to prevent this happening or stood back because He didn’t want to interfere is too horrifying to contemplate.

Job 1:20 Then Job arose and tore his robe and shaved his head and fell on the ground and worshiped. ²¹ And he said, “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return. The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.” ²² In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong.

click here to leave a comment

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

New Blog: The Sola Panel

There’s a brand new face in the blogosphere. Actually, 9 faces.

The Sola Panel is a new blog from a number of Sydney writers. Tony Payne, the convenor, explains on their intro page…

As I looked around, I realized not only that such blogs were relatively rare, but that I had no hope of starting or maintaining anything like that on my own. So I approached some mates to see if they felt the same. The response was enthusiastic, and the idea of the Sola Panel was born: a bunch of Reformed Evangelical friends who love the five ‘solas’ of the Reformation, and who want to work together to promote a Bible-driven passion for theology, holiness and gospel ministry.

We share a great deal as friends, theologically (we all have degrees from Moore Theological College) and geographically (we all live in or near Sydney). But the Sola Panel won’t have a particular party line, or any censorship. The Panellists all get to say what they like, and if we disagree with each other (which we inevitably will from time to time), we’ll discuss it in the comments or in the next post.

I know a bunch of these guys and I’m looking forward to what they have to write.

Go have a look.

Oh, and welcome to Sola Panel readers who have come here from their blogroll. Good to have you with us! I hope you will find the material here thoughtful, Bible-driven, unashamedly Reformed and Evangelical, ministry-hearted, proactive, godly and of a consistently high standard. I cannot, however, promise to be consistently non-trivial

click here to leave a comment

Posted by David Ould on 04/29 at 04:02 PM
Australia | Theology | (0) Comments | (0) Trackbacks | Permalink

Friday, April 25, 2008

Women Bishops in Australia

They’re coming at a pace.

Last year, a church tribunal decided that there was no canonical bar to women becoming bishops (they are already ordained priest in many of our dioceses). Then, a few weeks ago, the bishops met up to agree a protocol to manage the consecration of women and protect the good consciences of those who were in disagreement.

Almost immediately Perth (long a bastion of liberal theology) announced the imminent consecration of Kay Goldsworthy. Conservative groups were dismayed. Here’s what the Anglican Church League had to say:

The ACL notes with sadness the decision of Archbishop Roger Herft and the Perth Diocesan Council to nominate Ms Kay Goldsworthy as an assistant bishop [pdf] within the Diocese of Perth.

While a deeply flawed Appellate Tribunal opinion in 2007 suggested there was no legal impediment to this move (and Archbishop Herft himself sat on that tribunal), it remains at odds with the Bible’s teaching on the appropriate relationship of men and women in and amongst the congregations of God’s people.

This action adds a new level of difficulty to the relationship between the various dioceses in the Anglican Church of Australia and raises a series of significant issues of conscience for those committed to living out the teaching of Scripture, rejoicing in that teaching as God’s good word to us. In a time of turmoil within the Anglican Communion we could have hoped for more restraint.

This morning I woke up to the news that Melbourne diocese have taken the same move.

What is shocking about this is that, unlike Perth, Melbourne has a very broad spectrum of views within it. Rather than a move that will alienate other dioceses, this is something that will cause further division. And that in a diocese still in great disagreement over the subject of abortion and the way that a report affirming the gradualist position was presented on their behalf to the Victoria Law Commission. Whether there are protocols or not, this is being rushed in on a denomination which are clearly not all in agreement. Not least, Sydney (which represents nigh on half the Anglicans in Australia) are clearly opposed to the move, and there are many throughout the nation’s Anglicans who are similarly unhappy.

One of the bodies representing them is ”Equal but Different” (EBD).

Equal but Different is committed to the historic and Biblical understanding of men and women as individuals created in the image of our loving Creator God, equally fallen in our human nature and equally able to be saved by our Saviour the Lord Jesus Christ, so that we might honour him and serve each other in relationships of loving male leadership and intelligent, willing female submission in the family and the church.

This applies to single and married women alike in the life of our Christian community, although it has a special relevance to marriage and the raising of children. The church can model for all society the beauty of right relationships, as men and women cooperate within their distinctive roles as God intended.

We realise this is counter-cultural in our feminist society but believe the teaching of the Bible is clear and relevant to our day, despite the passage of time and cultural change.

The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood are currently interviewing Claire Smith (one of EBD’s Steering Committee on their blog. Here’s some of the first segment:

In the ACA as it now stands, women can be ordained as priests, and can preach and lead parishes in most dioceses. A recent controversial decision by the ACA Appellate Tribunal has ruled there is no constitutional barrier to women being consecrated as bishops. The appointment of a woman as bishop in Perth is a consequence of this decision.

In dioceses which have not accepted these innovations, however, the ministry of women who have been ordained as priests is not always welcome or recognized, and even within those dioceses where women are ordained, there are individual churches that do not believe women should have identical ministries with men and would resist the appointment of a female priest, and within individual churches, there are people who believe the same.

Acceptance has been far from uniform. At every level from the national church right down to the person in the pew, there are those who have remained faithful to the scriptural teaching of differing ministries for men and women and not departed from this biblical pattern or Anglican tradition.

The innovation of women in the priesthood, and now women in the episcopate, means we are a church divided, without a common ministry and more significantly, without a common understanding of the word of God.

That is, ultimately, why so many of us are up in arms about this. Not only is it a rejection of the word of God, but the way it has been carried out is, to be generous, “through the back door”. The Melbourne decision indicates that sensitivity to those who are opposed can be simply deferred to the existence of “protocols”. These will be a tough few months ahead. What might Australian conservatives learn from the history of TEC? Time will tell.

click here to leave a comment

Thursday, April 24, 2008

dinner

It’s school holidays here at the moment and so our bible study group had a social night - extended seafood dinner. Various dishes; fish pie, mussels, squid etc were produced and a good time had by all.

One of the best things about this sort of evening is that you get to know each other a little better. Perhaps the best discovery was that Will can do this…

click here to leave a comment

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Reaching out to others

This morning, Craig and I got our espresso machines out and made coffees for the mums and dads who drop their kids off at the daycare that runs in our old church hall. We had a great morning of making caps and flat whites and chatting to the parents.

Interesting, that the mums were far more likely to stop and have a drink than the dads. Yet again, an indication that we have to work really hard to connect with men.

A really good way to spend a couple of hours.

Then, of course, there’s other ways to reach out. Like this guy…

nope, don’t think I’ll be trying that. Actually, it’s already been tried in this country…

click here to leave a comment

Posted by David Ould on 04/23 at 10:32 AM
Personal | Australia | (0) Comments | (0) Trackbacks | Permalink

Saturday, April 12, 2008

Priest tells actively homosexual judge to repent

A fascinating story here in Sydney, reported by the smh.

A SENIOR minister of a Sydney Anglican parish has made an extraordinary attack on the High Court judge Michael Kirby, warning he would face the wrath of God if he remained unrepentant as a gay man.

The rector of St Stephen’s Church in Bellevue Hill, the Reverend Richard Lane, denounced the judge for calling himself a Christian Anglican while living in an openly gay relationship and warned as a “messenger, watchman and steward of the Lord in the Anglican Church of Australia”, he faced God’s judgment.

To call himself a Christian Anglican was a “perversion of truth” and to continue to do so without changing his lifestyle would brand him, like Herod, a “coward, a liar, a deceiver” and a “lawless one”.

“I appeal to you to cast yourself on the mercy of Jesus … That is admit your sin, confess your wrongdoing and turn in humble repentance to the Lord Jesus, who alone can forgive you,” Mr Lane said.

The attack came in an exchange of letters between the priest and the judge which was cited during a forum organised by St James Institute on Tuesday night to encourage a “public conversation” about religious tolerance and homosexuality. Justice Kirby shared the stage with the Herald’s David Marr.

The letters prompted a complaint from Justice Kirby to the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen, who also asserts that homosexual practices are sinful.

“The archbishop’s injunction to me, which was quite sensible I thought, was we’ll give this person the benefit of the doubt,” Justice Kirby told the audience. “He probably thinks he’s doing you a favour and you should just see whether there is any truth in what he says, and think about it.”

Mr Lane’s attack was provoked by Justice Kirby’s assertion on ABC Radio late last year that the Anglican and Catholic archbishops of Sydney, Peter Jensen and George Pell, had, via religious instruction, made it hard for people to adopt a more tolerant attitude to gays.

Urging the judge to open himself to “God’s healing of homosexuality”, Mr Lane said Justice Kirby was a hypocrite for choosing to remain inside the church but claiming that homosexual practice “or any other sin” was in accordance with God’s will.

Mr Lane proposed circulating the written exchange with fellow clergy to ask the question: “Am I wrong?” Justice Kirby has agreed to this.

In reply he argued Mr Lane’s interpretation of biblical injunctions against homosexuality was not a universal one, and the biblical quotations used were unreliable mid-19th century translations. Mr Lane appeared to have turned a blind eye to the “central loving message of Jesus of the gospels”.

“To defy modern knowledge and to stick to uninformed interpretations is truly irrational. To do so selectively is specially so. It is a reason why the churches are losing rational adherents.”

Mr Lane declined to comment yesterday. Dr Jensen said correspondence between Mr Lane and Justice Kirby needed to be read fully and in context. “I have a long-standing personal relationship with Justice Kirby and he and I have communicated about these letters in confidence,” he said.

I don’t know how you respond to this. First, it’s important to note that this was part of an ongoing dialogue between the Lane and Kirby that Kirby himself agreed should be circulated. Indeed, Kirby himself had promoted a public debate on this very subject and it would have been no surprise to him that Lane held the position that he did - albeit expressed in a stark way.

The ACL make an interesting observation:

This story raises the question – how should a minister understand his ordination vows? Here are the words of the Bishop to the Candidates in the 1662 Ordinal –

“Ye have heard, Brethren, as well in your private examination, as in the exhortation which was now made to you, and in the holy Lessons taken out of the Gospel, and the writings of the Apostles, of what dignity, and of how great importance this Office is, whereunto ye are called.
And now again we exhort you, in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye have in remembrance, into how high a Dignity, and to how weighty an Office and Charge ye are called: that is to say, to be Messengers, Watchmen, and Stewards of the Lord; to teach, and to premonish [i.e. warn], to feed and provide for the Lord’s family; to seek for Christ’s sheep that are dispersed abroad… that they may be saved through Christ for ever.

Have always therefore printed in your remembrance, how great a treasure is committed to your charge. For they are the sheep of Christ, which he bought with his death, and for whom he shed his blood. …”

(Full Ordinal is available here.)

Indeed. We may not feel comfortable with how Lane fulfilled his duty, but we have to admire his integrity and loyalty to his vows. Which is, after all, really loyalty to the Lord Jesus Christ.

click here to leave a comment

Friday, April 11, 2008

Australia’s first female bishop announced

ABC are reporting…

Australia is set to have its first female Anglican bishop.

The Venerable Kay Goldsworthy, 51, will be consecrated on May 22 at St George’s Cathedral in Perth.

Archdeacon Goldsworthy was one of the first women to be ordained in 1992 shortly after the order allowed women to become priests.

Last year, the Anglican appellate tribunal paved the way for the elevation of women to the position of bishop, saying nothing in the church’s constitution could stop such a move.

Archdeacon Goldsworthy has had extensive experience within the Perth diocese, including terms as school chaplain, canon of the cathedral and parish priest.

Archdeacon Goldsworthy says it is a hugely important day for the church as women take their place alongside men.

“We’ve been a while catching up in Australia,” she said.

“Twenty years ago we weren’t yet ordaining women as priests, but the time has come and I know that the great majority of Australian Anglicans warmly welcome this day, and the fact that there is no longer any discrimination against women in pastoral leadership.”

This is a tricky one for the orthodox in Australia. The question of whether women could be consecrated never went to the floor of General Synod and, rather, got fudged by a legal tribunal.

The final door was opened for this by a recent meeting of the Australian bishops…

Australia’s Anglican leaders have taken another step towards women bishops, agreeing on a protocol to deal with the contentious issue.

The move, which came out of this week’s Anglican bishops’ conference in the NSW city of Newcastle, followed last year’s ruling by the church’s peak law body that there were no legal hurdles to women becoming bishops.

The bishops said in a statement today the Women in the Episcopate protocol, which was adopted at the conference, would help deal with differences of opinion over female bishops.

“The bishops recognised the good faith of those in the church who support the new development of women bishops and of those who find that they cannot do so,” they said in a statement.

“They resolved to nurture the highest possible level of collegiality as bishops in the future.

“The bishops agreed to make special provision in situations where the ministry of a woman bishop would not be welcome.”

It is expected parishes that disagree with oversight from a female bishop would be able to receive some form of alternative oversight from a male bishop, either in the same region or a neighbouring diocese.

Anglican Primate, Archbishop Phillip Aspinall, said he was pleased that “in the face of difference in strongly-held convictions” the bishops had reached agreement.

No other details about the agreement were available.

Archbishop Jensen of Sydney adds this comment:

“I’m pleased that there has been considerable goodwill during the formation of these protocols. Action was needed to protect the consciences of those who believe, as we do, that the consecration of women bishops is against biblical teaching. There are strongly-held convictions which separate us but we have endeavoured to find a way forward with courtesy and respect.”

And there it is. It’s a done deal. Charitably, we have “protocols” to protect those of us who have principled objections. I wonder, however, how long they will remain in force.

click here to leave a comment

Tuesday, April 08, 2008

A Very Special Tent - more audio!

Thursday, April 03, 2008

Peter Jensen on the ABC

Almost an hour’s conversation with ArchBishop Peter Jensen of Sydney on ABC Radio. This is great stuff and provides a useful insight into how Jensen thinks and communicates himself. Here he covers everything from his conversion, his children and the current Anglican crisis.

click here to leave a comment

Hounding the Heretics?

My recent post on the Dean of Perth’s Easter message raised a number of comments - most were in favour of the position that I had taken but 2 in particular were not.

I thought it might be good to set out an answer to the comments made.

First, Christopher Wortham writes:

I too am saddened, but by your intemperate response to the Dean’s sermon rather than by what he said. Fundamentalism of all colours--whether Christian, Jewish or Islamic--serves only to stir up hatred and division through intolerance and lack of understanding. I can readily accept your literal interpretation, but I would not presume to think it the only valid one. Please: a little less indignation and a little more humility before the fact that all our human perceptions are limited in various ways. I personally find John Shepherd a most delightful, inspiring and instructive person. Your orchestrated attack on him is deplorable.

I’m not quite sure why Christopher thinks my response is “intemperate”. There’s nothing that I’ve written that appears (at least to me) to be “unrestrained” or “unbridled” as dictionary.com defines the word. Rather I’m simply expressing my disagreement. Firmly, to be sure. But in an unrestrained way? Hardly.
Next we have the pejorative use of the word “fundamentalism”. Apparently we must all have a little more humility in our truth claims.

The question, then, is whether one can be certain about the things of God, particularly since “our human perceptions are limited in various ways”. Granted, we do not know everything. But surely we can know some things very well! I know, for example, that my 4 year old daughter loves me. I have more than enough evidence to be quite intolerant and fundamentalist in my claim. It is an unassailable truth and I’m sure Christopher would see no reason to disagree. Why then disagree with other matters?
Note that Christopher does not claim that God is unable to reveal Himself properly, just that we cannot understand. But does the Bible work on the same assumption? Does it recognise that we will never truly know or, alternatively, does it speak to a humanity on the assumption that they are able to understand sufficiently, even if not perfectly?

One example will suffice. At Church we have been working through John’s gospel. At the end of his account of the Resurrection John writes the following:

John 20:30 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. ³¹ But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Note a number of things:

John has written about a number of “miraculous signs”
John considers the recording of those signs to be sufficient grounds to respond in trusting faith to Jesus
The response of trusting faith in Jesus flows from the realisation that He is the Christ, the Son of God

Now, this is not, of course, an exhaustive account of Jesus but it is sufficient. It is also utterly comprehensible. Amongst those comprehensible things is that very real physical Resurrection of Jesus Christ. He shows His disciples the scars on his body. He cooks and eats a breakfast with them. It is a very real physical miraculous sign. John records the sign with confidence that we may understand it and act upon it.

There is, then, no “humility” on the part of John. He does not say “maybe”. He states the facts and calls us to respond to them. Christopher’s complaint of fundamentalism, then, should not be directed to me but to the Apostle John for it is John who insists upon those things that the Dean of Perth himself insists should be challenged. The Dean himself makes a fundamentalist claim - that another claim should be challenged. Why is it, Christopher, that the Dean may challenge John’s claim but we may not challenge his?

I’m sure that the Dean is delightful. Not delightful enough, of course, to have responded to my email, but delightful nevertheless. But that is not the point. He has denied what is in the Scriptures. As for an “orchestrated attack” - I think Christopher has a far higher view of my influence than is merited. Those who know me will, I’m sure, set him straight.

Now, onto the second complaint. This one from Richard Flanigan:

Ah. The arrogance of the ‘truth’ claim. If only human nature were that consistent. How many times have we heard the claim of truth made by persons of every religious persuasion on earth. Why should anyone accept the claim that religious fundamentalists in whatever forum or faith are exclusively privy to the ‘truth’ about the revelations of God. Do you honestly believe that the God of Love would be so intolerant of his creation in all its forms as to exclude 99% of the world population simply because they are either not members of the Christian faith or because they dare to exercise the free will breathed into us at birth and question the literalness of a bible the many translations of which have been the source of considerable scholarly debate and opinion over many, many centuries. What make the statement of bishops in the 16th century in the 39 Articles more ‘truthful’ than the claims of contemporary scholars and theologians down the ages including those of the late 20th and the 21st century? Do you honestly believe that God revealed his ‘interpretation’ of the ‘truth’ solely to Church in England, in the provinces of Canterbury and York in 1562 and never before or again in Christendom. Chris Wortham is right when he says “Fundamentalism of all colours--whether Christian, Jewish or Islamic--serves only to stir up hatred and division through intolerance and lack of understanding.” This has nothing to do with the claim of ‘truth’!

Richard goes one step further than Christopher by questioning not only human perception of God but God’s actual self-revelation. What may we actually say about the “truth” of God? Well, here’s what Jesus says and what is said about Him, again from John’s gospel:

John 1:17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ

John 8:31 To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. ³² Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

These are, of course, just a few examples of how the theme of truth pervades the Gospel. Jesus is the one in whom the truth of God is found. To follow Him is to know the truth.

As with Christopher before him, Richard’s complaint is not really with me but with the one who spoke these words. It is Jesus’ claims to speak the truth about God that Richard is unhappy with. That is, I suggest, a very dangerous position to be in.

Now what of history? Richard asks a very valid question:

What make the statement of bishops in the 16th century in the 39 Articles more ‘truthful’ than the claims of contemporary scholars and theologians down the ages including those of the late 20th and the 21st century? Do you honestly believe that God revealed his ‘interpretation’ of the ‘truth’ solely to Church in England, in the provinces of Canterbury and York in 1562 and never before or again in Christendom.

Well, in and of themselves there is nothing that makes the 39 Articles more “truthful” than “the claims of contemporary scholars and theologians”. Personally I believe they are a far better representation of what the Scriptures say than those other alleged authorities. Nor do the Articles themselves claim to be the “sole” interpretation of the truth. That is to attack a straw man. The point I wished to raise was that Dean Shepherd was publically attacking a position that he has sworn, in his ordination vows, to uphold.
The current Prayer Book of the Australian Church is ”An Australian Prayer Book” (AAPB). There are a number of promises that Shepherd made upon his ordination to the Priesthood, set out in the AAPB ordinal on pp.608-615. Here’s a key one:

Will you always faithfully minister the doctrine and sacraments, and the discipline of Christ, as the Lord has commanded, and as this Church has received them, according to the commandments of God? Will you teach the people committed to your charge to keep and observe them diligently?

To which Shepherd would have answered:

I will do so, by the help of our Lord

Now, how would Dean Shepherd go about discerning how this Church has received that Doctrine? Well, he would go to the Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia, helpfully available online [pdf] wherein he would read:

it is hereby further declared, that the above-named Book of Common Prayer, together with the Thirty-nine Articles, be regarded as the authorised standard of worship and doctrine in this Church, and no alteration in or permitted variations from the services or Articles therein contained shall contravene any principle of doctrine or worship laid down in such standard. (para. 4)

Now, the 39 Articles may or may not be a correct statement of true doctrine, but they are the statement that the Church into which both Shepherd and I are ordained have stated is their standard. Hence my original complaint that the Dean was teaching contrary to those Articles and, in particular, Article 4:

Article IV

Of the Resurrection of Christ

Christ did truly rise again from death, and took again his body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of Man’s nature; wherewith he ascended into Heaven, and there sitteth, until he return to judge all Men at the last day.

This really is simply a matter of integrity. If Shepherd doesn’t believe this stuff then fair enough - no-one is forcing him to believe it. I am quite happy that men and women in good conscience don’t believe it. I am desperately sad for them but recognise their need to believe freely and not under compulsion. As Richard puts it, it is right that he should “dare to exercise the free will breathed into us at birth”. But that is not what is at issue. What is at issue is integrity. Shepherd (and he is not the only one) has sworn to uphold the very things that he now denies. He is free to deny them but not free to maintain the position that he holds, namely a priest in the Anglican Church of Australia.

Of course, no-one is going to fire him, I don’t expect them to. But what I do look for is integrity! I look for men and women to step up to the plate and accept the consequences of what they believe in. Honourable men and women, surely, understand this. They don’t continue to take a salary and enjoy the trappings of an office when they themselves reject the constitution of their organisation! You wouldn’t expect the Chief Executive of PepsiCo to stay in their position if they publically announced that Coke was a better drink! It’s an outrageous idea. So why should clergy be any different?

As for Richard’s final charge of intolerance, I’m afraid I have nothing to add to what is already written above. He and Christopher will, no doubt, be unsatisfied with what I have written. I should, before finishing, thank them for writing comments on my site. I appreciate their candour and their willingness both to come into “enemy territory” and to identify themselves.

I trust, however, they and others will not be so intolerant themselves so as to not carefully consider (and hopefully even respond to) what I have written.

click here to leave a comment

Page 1 of 9 pages 1 2 3 > Last »

Statistics

This page has been viewed 114258 times
Page rendered in 1.5428 seconds
Total Entries: 735
Total Comments: 3903
Total Trackbacks: 849
Most Recent Entry: 05/11/2008 07:29 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/09/2008 09:47 pm
Total Members: 4
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 8
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/17/2008 01:22 pm
The most visitors ever was 96 on 07/01/2007 09:30 am