Women in ministry: synod motion should be forwards

In the last hectic weeks before Synod, it has been revealed that a motion will seek to introduce a further debate on the introduction of women to the priesthood by promoting a General Synod Canon that has been twice rejected by Sydney Synod.

The previous rejections were part of Sydney Synod repeatedly showing its
commitment to uphold the biblical teaching that others have set aside in
order to ordain women as priests.

This third attempt will provide a magnificent opportunity for further public discussion in which the biblical and theological issues can be rehearsed.

Since God's Word is always best for us, this should be an occasion for great joy.

This should be the outcome of any discussion of the proper Scriptural order that ought to pertain between men and women in family, church, and society. The clear differentiation between male and female, God's good gift for his world, enables a complementarity in ministry that ensures the world receives a fully human expression of the gospel. To promote women to the priesthood, against Scriptural authority, on the other hand, assumes a rather pallid view of God's good gifts to his world and his church. In a strange twist, it is a move that is actually an anti-female strategy. For to suggest that women need to be ordained (whether to the priesthood"” or the diaconate) to do ministry, is to
cater for the "mote' while missing the huge raft of women's ministry alive and well in Sydney at the moment.

And, of course, once we have enjoyed the opportunity to hear of the glory of complementary relations yet again.

The Bill most certainly must be defeated on this occasion, just as it has been in the past.
And it should be dealt with as quickly as possible, for it should not be allowed to become a distraction.

The attempt at this time to reopen a box that the Synod of Sydney has so firmly closed could prove to be a further divisive distraction from the urgent work of mission that the Synod has committed itself to so firmly with one strong and united voice.

Apart from enabling the Scriptural teaching to be discussed, there is absolutely no reason to open the lid once again. Although some from elsewhere once declared that there were no biblical or theological reasons in the way of women priests, Sydney Synod has persistently disagreed. The principled discussions across the last thirty years have consistently argued on the basis of biblical teaching and
core theological truths.

In the past, some have tried to say this is simply a question of order, not morality or truth. This cannot stand up to scrutiny. To set aside the plain teaching of Scripture or to go against core theological truths is clearly immoral. Even if ministry is part of the "order' of the church, the apostolic testimony clearly spoke about this and showed the apostles had a definite opinion!

The gospel of justification by faith begins to rightly order a person's life with respect to God and to other people. The same gospel rightly orders human relational life, including church life as well. On exactly the issue of male /female relations in the order of the church, Paul warns against the one who does not listen to him (1 Cor 14:38). It is clearly not a matter that does not matter.

Nor can it be isolated from the truth God has made known about himself, as Paul himself argues (1 Cor. 11:1"3).As an issue that deals with our core being (male or female) and our core relations (male
and female), on the basis of the core relations of the divine being, this is one of the most significant matters of human life.

When the debate shifted to constitutional issues in the 80s, Archbishop Robinson exercised leadership for our own Diocese and elsewhere (including Lambeth), in arguing that the ordination of women would be a fundamental breach in the unity of the Anglican Communion. When Canberra's Bishop
Dowling ordained 11 women priests in 1992, in defiance of General Synod's persistent and repeated refusal to grant permission, the Sydney laity took the lead by challenging the constitutionality
of his move. But, the basic issue for Sydney was still biblical-theological.

The debate has now moved to the rhetoric of personal identity. By using the language of "unity and diversity'"” stressing the "diversity' side of the equation "” a powerful emotional force is introduced into the discussion. Our post-modern environment champions the margins, not the middle; and begs to differ, while being unable to find any real togetherness; it makes difference core, and commonality almost criminal. This potent mix makes for a volatile situation