Mon
Mar
13
2006
No hypocrisy Muriel
Muriel Porter writes an opinion piece in today’s Herald taking her usual poke at Sydney Anglicanism, but this time, it’s so poorly argued as to reflect badly on her.
Read the article for yourself, but to stretch the doctrine of male headship in the family and the church to the situation of the Queen being present at a service at St Andrew’s Cathedral in Sydney today, is just plain silly.
Let me declare upfront: I’m perfectly happy with the biblical argument that many use in Sydney Anglicanism that supports the concept of male headship in the family and the church. But note: this is an issue of Christian, not secular leadership.
And while the Queen is the titular head of the Church of England, Sydney Anglicans have no formal ties with that body. We are in communion with them, just as we are with other parts of the Anglican church with whom we strongly disagree. Being ‘in communion’ doesn’t mean we agree with everything another church body may stand for. Rather, it reflects that there are other, much bigger issues, that we do share common ground on, and exhibits a level of tolerance and graciousness that many say doesn’t exist in Sydney Anglicanism.
If Muriel Porter had taken the time to investigate the actual practice of Sydney Anglicans, instead of taking cheap shots, she would know that increasing numbers of women are involved in profoundly important and significant ministry role all over this Diocese.
Can or should they lead a church? No. Can or should they be Bishops? No. Should they usurp their husband’s role as leader of their family? No.
Ephesians 5 and 1 Corinthians 7 are good places to start for guidance in these areas.
I noticed that Muriel made no argument from Scripture in her article.
But the cheapest shot of all is near the end of the article. Here’s a partial quote:
“...Neither is the notion that women must, simply because they are women, submit to men in the church or in any walk of life. Most of all, they should not be required to submit in marriage either. We know enough about domestic violence now to realise that that is a very dangerous – and ungodly – doctrine indeed.”
To suggest for a second that the biblical command to ‘submit’ (as, for example, in Ephesians 5:22) is in any way linked to the idea of domestic violence is a childishly simplistic reading of Scripture.
And to suggest for one second that Sydney Anglicans condone any domestic violence in the name of biblical submission, is plainly and demonstrably wrong and offensive.
Go back to your bible Muriel, and humbly submit yourself to God’s word.
Comment
Commenting is closed for this article.
Quite right, Neil. Talk about putting words in our mouths!
I don’t think there would be many Sydney Anglicans who do not differentiate between spiritual and secular leadership. We can, without hypocrisy, “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.”
Most of all, however, Porter’s article speaks of anger and ever hatred in its single-mindedness. Where in such bile does she see herself serving God?
I must be careful, I suppose, to avoid responding in kind. Though, I find the article infuriating.
— David G · Mar 14, 04:25 AM · #
I agree. She seems to be very angry – I’m not sure what the source of the anger is.
Muriel was interviewed on last week’s Religion Report about her new book The New Puritans: The Rise of Fundamentalism in the Anglican Church. Have a listen. We’re not just evangelicals (which is becoming a pejorative term), not just Fundamentalists, but now we’re also Puritans. Now, I’d agree that we share a lot in common with the English (not American) puritans. Some weird amalgum called “presbyterian non-conformist episcopalian non-separating congregationalism”. But to the claim that we’re Puritans I’d (personally) add Richard Baxter’s rejoiner: “Alas, I am not so good and happy to be spoken of in such words of high praise.”
Perhaps we will soon also be popularly called “Hussites”, “followers of the Nazarene”, “man-haters” or even “Christians”...
— Pete · Mar 14, 07:23 AM · #
Pete, that was a slightly bizarre interview in the Religion Report. The only way they seem to see Sydney Anglicans is in the sense of our political power. The reference to the recent record ordination of 47 people was only spoken of in the context of increased influence on General Synod. What about how it reflects the Spirit of God at work? Or is evidence of people being converted, and gospel growth taking place?
No wonder the rest of the Anglican Church in Australia is languishing so. Based on that interview, they don’t appear to understand the gospel or gospel ministry, and are only concerned with their waning political influence!
— NeilA · Mar 14, 08:34 AM · #
I agree with some of the sentiments to a point. However after reading the religion report transcript i agree with the preposition that parts of Sydney Anglican doctorine are fundamentalist in nature. But the issue at hand is that such analysis are at best overly simplistic. The church I know and at times feel good/pleased/satisfied with being part of, is a very broadly based organissation. Fundamentalism in the pejoritive means adhering to all the particular beliefs of that doctorine not just a few key ones as is the case with Sydney Anglicans. However, i think there some substaintial food for thought in te religion report about our understanding of power and the way that we use that power to achieve our aims and objectives as an organisation. Jesus explicitly asks our leaders to have a servant heart now obviously up for debate and something that i would enjoy feedback on but i dont see this servanthood in action.
— LukeS · Mar 14, 05:08 PM · #
Can you clarify which leaders you feel are falling down in their servanthood Luke, and how that’s demonstrated?
Cheers
— NeilA · Mar 14, 05:11 PM · #
Long and interesting debate about this article in the forums at www.sydneyanglicans.net.
— Richard · Mar 15, 05:19 AM · #
Happy to clarify my point or at least my last of many points… Our church has leadership for every ministry and that is great. It means that decisions get made and that responsibility is taken for those ministries. However, and this extends to both churches that i have been part of (only 2 i am young), what churches struggle with is caring for one another once the sunday sermon is over. Leadership is a quality that we understand Servanthood is a quality that we do not. We lead our churches well and that is fantastic but i am less certain that we care for people. I would not point out anyone inparticular nor do i think that is helpful i would encourage us all to start by asking each other what does it actually mean to serve/care for one another.
— LukeS · Mar 15, 05:52 AM · #
@Richard – thanks for the pointer… For those interested this is the thread on SA forums – all 13 pages of it (as at this post)!
@Luke – No argument that we can do a lot better in caring for each other. But that’s not always a leadership issue. It should be modelled by the leadership for sure, but sometimes that is hard to do. Some situations that I’m involved in that could come under the heading of caring for others, cannot be made public, and therefore people don’t see it.
Now, this is a good topic, but perhaps it would be good to see a specific thread started on the TAC site, as it gets away from the core topic of Dr Porter’s article.
— NeilA · Mar 15, 07:49 AM · #
thats true it is away from the theme of the thread and i think that is a great idea. It actually cane up in our bible study last week. Perhaps a good place to start would be what is servanthood?? Good discussion though
— LukeS · Mar 15, 09:04 AM · #