First Australian female Bishop appointed in Perth

[JustinD]

I see that Kay Goldsworthy, who has been serving as an archdeacon in Perth, was named this morning as Australia's first female bishop, and will be consecrated by Abp Roger Herft next month.

I'd be interested in other's thoughts about the impact this will have in Melbourne and in the wider church - from a church governance point of view, Perth seem to have made clear from the start that they will support alternative episcopal oversight arrangements, although I'm not clear on the mechanics of what they are planning to do.

The following is an exerpt from an AAP release today:

"PERTH Anglican archdeacon Kay Goldsworthy has today made history - becoming Australia's first female bishop.

Ms Goldsworthy, 51, was today named as an assistant bishop, to be consecrated on May 22.

The unanimous decision was made by Perth Archbishop Roger Herft and his diocesan council last night in the wake of an agreement reached this week between Australia's Anglican bishops on a protocol to handle opponents of women bishops.

Under the protocol, parishes that cannot in good conscience recognise the ministry of a woman bishop will be offered the services of a male bishop. "

[Jereth]

Hi Justin, good to see you here!

I am disappointed but not exactly surprised by this development. It's been in the pipeline for a while. Regarding alternative oversight, I am thankful that the church seems committed to providing this protection and care to those whose consciences cannot agree with the development. I sincerely hope and pray that when Melbourne elects a female bishop, the significant portion of us here who conscientiously object to this will have our wishes and views respected.

Without setting aside the urgent pastoral questions that have been raised by Rev. Goldsworthy's appointment, I am far more interested in the theological ramifications of ordaining women to the episcopate, and there are many. For example, can Anglicans seriously claim historical legitimacy for their 3-fold ordering of ministry (deacon, priest, bishop) any longer, now that we have broken cleanly with historical Orthodoxy by allowing women to participate in the priestly and episcopal ministries? In our denomination, do concepts such as apostolic succession and the historic episcopate mean anything much anymore, or are they now rendered valueless?

What does it mean when the Church orders its ministry in such a fashion that conflicts with Scripture? Specifically I am thinking of Genesis 2, 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and 1 Timothy 2:8-15. (In case anyone wishes to argue that Scripture can be interpreted in more than one way, let's remember that our modern opinions on this matter must be held against the consistent and unbroken witness of 19 centuries of Christian scholarship and interpretation of the Scriptures.) Has there been a shift in our understanding of the authority and infallibility of Scripture?

What does all this mean for the validity of ordinations, and the Sacraments? (A pastoral as well as theological issue.)

What does this mean for our understanding of the Image of God in humanity? If an Anglican minister celebrates Eucharist and preaches the Word as a representative of Christ our high priest, how will this work when the minister is a female? (an argument once made by J. I. Packer I believe.) What are the ramifications of female spiritual leadership for our understanding of a God who has revealed himself as Father, Son and Spirit? Or for our understanding of a God who became forever incarnate as a Man, also called in Scripture "Son of God" and "son of man", and foreshadowed by the Aaronic priesthood and Davidic monarchy (both masculine lines)?

What does it mean for Christian marriage, where the husband is called to love his wife as Christ loved the Church? (Ephesians 5).

I don't think any of these things are trivial matters, and the onus is therefore on those who support the innovation to deliver satisfactory answers which take full account of Scripture, theology and the Church's historical understandings.

[Jenny George-2]

Hi Jereth

Won't respond to your main points, but I'm concerned about the situations where the "significant portion" who conscientiously object are not a majority in their parish. I suspect that might even be true of St Jude's.

This raises the interesting issue of what would/will happen in Melbourne if those who in conscience cannot accept female episcopal oversight are not divided evenly into parishes. Would there be movement between parishes until everyone is neatly arranged into like-minded groupings on this issue?

I'm worried about the distraction and divisiveness that this might cause. Personally I don't have a problem with female bishops, but when Melbourne gets one I think it's going to be important to pray that we don't get sidetracked by church order issues from continuing to reach Melbourne with the good news of Jesus Christ.

Jenny

[Tim Patrick]

From my perspective, there are two very key issues: 1. alternative oversight and 2. rash symbolic acts

1. If there is a significant group of people who cannot accept the oversight of a particular bishop (female or male) and the church provides 'alternative oversight' what does this actually say about authority in the church? You can just reject the authority you don't like and we'll supply a someone else? How is that authority? Are those bishops whose authority goes unrecognised really full and proper bishops or are they optional bishops? Will people begin to reject the oversight of various bishops for the wrong reasons? eg. they didn't like being disciplined; they don't like the missional direction that the bishop is setting; they'd just prefer someone of another gender. If we agree to a system of alternative oversight, our very nature as an episcopal church will be massively compromised and may become practically meaningless.

2. I am worried that the race to consecrate female bishops in Aus is primarily just for symbolic value. Surely we can't appoint people to high office purely for symbolic reasons. (That would be like voting for Hillary Clinton just because she's a woman or Barak Obama just because he's black. Rather than being a recognition of their leadership abilities, it's actually quite patronising.) We need bishops who are actually able for the tasks of oversight and who meet all the requirements of an overseer in the Pastoral Epistles and the APBA. We need bishops who are proven leaders and approachable pastors of pastors. (Perhaps Kay Goldsworthy does measure up to all of this - I don't know anything about her - but no one can deny that there's a strong smack of triumphalism in the timing of her appointment.) If we choose bishops mainly for symbolic value, we need to be prepared to live with the reality of their leadership (or the fact that many people may reject it) once the thrill wears off.

[Jereth]

Reply to Jenny
Thanks Jenny for your comments. I think you're right that, apart from a few exceptions, most Melbourne churches contain a mix of people who approve of a female bishop and people who don't. However I don't think it will be so drastic that everyone migrates around until we are "neatly arranged into like-minded groupings". In fact, I think that what is more important for most complementarians is the gender of their church's senior minister, and the gender of the preachers -- not the gender of the (rather distant and invisible) bishop -- and therefore you'll probably find that if there was ever going to be any shifting around based on this issue, it has already happened (eg. a friend of mine who moved from St. Hillary's Kew to St. Judes in 2006, and another person I know who left St. Matthew's Prahran in 2007).

I think that some minor degree of "realignment" over this issue is inevitable. At the present time I'm fairly certain that it is a second-order issue, not a first-order one, but even second-order issues can be significant enough to cause realignment. Baptism is a good example: it is a second-order issue, but Baptists cannot in conscience worship in churches where infants are baptised. This doesn't necessarily mean that there is disunity or hostility, or that the two parties can't cooperate in gospel mission. It just means they have to meet in separate places on a Sunday.

As a matter of fact, where there is a significant difference of opinion on a theological issue, geographical separation can help dissipate frictions and tensions and thus end up increasing harmony. A Presbyterian minister told me several months ago that an enormous amount of energy is expended in denominations (such as the Anglican church) where people differ passionately on the gender issue -- energy that could be put to better uses. By contrast, in the Presbyterian church, where everyone accepts one point of view, no energy is wasted and they can just get on with business.

Reply to Tim
1. Hmm, I think I'm going to have to go away and think hard about all that!!  But surely, isn't it okay to have alternative oversight in relation to a limited number of specific issues where there is major conscientious objection? Otherwise, how are conscientious objectors protected? Can you suggest another mechanism?

One way or another, I hope (for the sake of our friends in Perth) that it becomes clear very soon what this "protocol" entails, and whether it really will guarantee protection of their consciences. Speaking for Melbourne, I would very much hope that we find out exactly what will be done to protect conscientious objectors well before a female bishop is appointed.

2. Wholeheartedly agree. It's hard not to get suspicious when a female bishop is appointed the morning after the bishop's meeting is over. It does seem like a symbolic gesture. If Brisbane and Melbourne appoint female bishops by the end of the month, then we will be left in little doubt about what really is going on here... It would be sad indeed if the Church of God became a mere ideological playground.

[Matt Williams]

Well, a slightly more charitable reading is possible.

It may be that Roger Herft has been itching to get Kay Goldsworthy into the job for ages, because he perceives her to be the best person for the job, and he has held off until he could meet with the house of bishops and establish agreement on protocol for dissenting parishes. It may be that other dioceses are also in similar situations.

Anyway, even if that is not the case, I'm not opposed to symbolic actions, nor to the use of positive discrimination to help nascent progress in principle. I think they're quite important really.

(Although the one part of the whole process that still irritates me is that General Synod never actually decided to approve women bishops. As far as I could see, the Appellate Tribunal decided for ideological reasons to read an old act of General Synod, which nobody on General Synod at the time thought was even related to the question of women bishops, as opening the doors to the same. In other words, the tribunal discovered we accidentally made a major shift in ecclesiology fifteen years ago while talking about something else. Although I personally support consecrating women as bishops, that sort of precedent, wherein the Appellate tribunal deliberately interprets legislation to mean something no-one present (most of whom are still alive, though some have died :-) thought it meant at the time, makes me feel very, very queasy...)

[Jereth]

Hi Matt,

I agree symbolic actions can be important -- for example, saying "sorry" to the indigenous people.

But let's not forget that there are pastoral considerations in this situation which must also be taken into account. Let's call those who accept a woman in authority the "strong" and those who object to it the "weak". Scripture teaches us in Romans 14-15 and 1 Corinthians 8-10 that, in disputed matters (or what we might call "second-order issues"), those who are "strong" in conscience should take special care that their actions do not offend the tender consciences of the "weak". Now, I expect that the appointment of a female bishop, whether it is done for symbolic or other reasons, will certainly offend many "weak" consciences in Melbourne and other places.

I had lunch with a bunch of people after church today, and the issue of women in authority came up. Believe it or not, 5 out of 6 of the people at the table felt strongly that the church has headed in the wrong direction by ordaining women (incidentally, 4 of these 5 are current or former Ridley students), and a significant amount of frustration was also expressed at the church's track record of ignoring or marginalising the conservative voice. There was even talk of this being something that people are prepared to divide over. Even I was rather taken aback by the strength of convictions that were expressed -- prior to the conversation I was not even aware that some of these folks were complementarians!

Should we not be concerned when we discover that decent, faithful Christians such as these have been pushed to such degrees of frustration? What has pushed them there is the relentless egalitarian/feminist impulse of the last 2 decades -- yet, because they are patient and generally polite people, they have quietly stayed in their churches and endured developments without kicking up a fuss. Numerous conversations with numerous people, lay and clergy, suggest that some ~20% of Melbourne evangelicals might fit into this category.

Personally, I find it upsetting that the "strong" conscience people have persistently advanced their position to the hurt of so many "weak" conscience people, when the aforementioned Scriptures indicate that our behaviour should be otherwise. Now that female bishops are being considered -- surely the last straw -- isn't it time for the "strong" to seriously rethink their course? Is it really worth causing that extra, final bit of hurt to brothers and sisters, just to make a symbolic point?

I hope I don't come across as grumpy and bitter. This is not an easy issue to discuss, but I sincerely think it is better that we can discuss it openly with mutual respect on all sides rather than keeping it taboo.

cheers, Jereth

[Matt Williams]

Hi Jereth,

No, you don't come across as grumpy and bitter (well, your first post on this thread did a bit, but not this one!!) I agree it's really important we are free to talk about it. I don't like creating theological no-go areas around pastorally sensitive or controversial topics - we need rigorous thinking in those areas all the more, and all our thinking will go flabby if we don't question one another. It's just important we discuss it with respect and charity, as you say.

I have, sadly, seen some evidence of a militant and unloving edge in the way women's ordination has been both promoted and opposed in both Melbourne and Sydney.

If I might first address your use of the Pauline texts, I think all of us, wherever we stand (and particularly if we have the privilege of theological education), must assume ourselves to be the 'strong' ones when reading those texts you point to. If we were the ones weak in faith, we ought to pursue maturity, not hold that over our stronger brothers.

Perhaps you could reconsider how you used them? As a complementarian yourself, I think it runs against the spirit of the texts to apply them to people on the other side. Paul's address is "WE who are strong ought to put up with the failings of the week". He only addresses the strong in faith, as one of them. He never says, and I feel confident he wouldn't, that "you who are weak in faith should hold that over the strong to keep the church entrenched in practices not warranted by the truth". In reading those texts we ought all try to imagine how we can put up with the failings of those who do not understand the scriptures as we do. But we mustn't simply be patronising - surely if you think I am weak in faith you wil seek to strengthen me by helping me understand the scriptures better, although you make space for my weak practices in the interim?

You may not be aware, but some people's consciences are scandalised because they cannot see a meaningful distinction between equality and equal opportunity - for them where the latter is missing, the former is missing; and since the gospel of Jesus Christ indisputably affirms the equality of men and women (complementarians would agree) to not ordain women, for them, amounts to a serious shortfall in the church's living out of the gospel. (I am not arguing in that form myself, but I offer that to help you enter into the spirit of the 'weaker brother' thing better.)

Having said that, as a supporter of women's ordination, I am very concerned by any attempts to exclude those who disagree. I am glad Peter Jensen has advocated for what he regards as satisfactory provisions for those of his persuasion in Perth (though it remains to be seen how it all works).

I am also glad that attempts to squash one viewpoint or the other are not prominent within the Ridley community, which I know is carefully striving from the top down to create an atmosphere respectful of all views on the subject (I know from countless conversations at Ridley that people on both sides of the debate often imagine themselves the minority there!). The Melbourne pro-women's ordination agenda does seem to acquire a certain reverse-intolerant edge from non-biblical arguments, and for that I am sorry. I'd sooner be surrounded by brothers and sisters who disagreed with me out of careful theological reflection on the scriptures than ones who agree with me for reasons other than such reflection.

Blessings
Matt

[Jereth]

Hi Matt,

Thanks for your very thoughtful reply.

First of all, can I please respectfully disagree that people on all sides of the gender debate can be made equivalent to the "strong" in Romans 14-15 and 1 Cor 8-10. This is because the "strong" in these passages are people whose consciences are flexible or "liberated" enough to tolerate a certain practice; while the "weak" are those who have a more restrictive, or less tolerant view. Therefore, it still seems to me that in this debate over women's ordination/consecration, it is those who are flexible enough to tolerate a female bishop who are more similar to the "strong", while those who wish to restrict episcopal (and priestly) ministry to men are more similar to the "weak".

To look at it another way, an egalitarian in a complementarian church feels that something is "missing" (i.e. female priests), but does not actually feel that sin is being committed by anyone present. This is like the meat-eater with a vegetarian pizza missing their meat, but not eating anything which they consider wrong. OTOH, a complementarian in an egalitarian church actually feels that disobedience is being committed by the female preachers or priests. This is like the vegetarian with a meat-lovers pizza, eating stuff they consider to be wrong.

Please note that I'm not suggesting that there is an exact parallel between controversies over meat-eating and women's ordination! but I do think a similar principle is at work.

Secondly, I apologise it it feels that I am somehow trying to "hold these texts over" you. My attitude in bringing this up is not a demanding or rebuking one which says: "This is what the Bible commands you -- why aren't you following it?!?" It is, rather, a desperate and humble plea on behalf of many "weak" brothers and sisters (call us what you wish) who are really having a hard time with the Melbourne diocese's dominant egalitarian ethos. We are just saying: "this is really upsetting us -- can you please just pause just for a moment to consider how we feel?"

Please recall that, on anyone's analysis, this debate has been well and truly "won" by the egalitarian side. When Melbourne finally appoints a female bishop, that will simply confirm what has been true for years. I understand that some egalitarians feel "scandalised" by the absence of a female bishop. But please also consider which side of the balance the weight is on. Complementarians are in the minority throughout Melbourne Anglicanism -- as someone previously suggested, this is probably even the case at a conservative place like St. Judes. There is only one outspoken complementarian on Ridley faculty. Women have been holding positions of church authority for years, and their numbers are trending upwards. Society at large is on the egalitarian side, as is the (highly influential) liberal wing of the denomination. Complementarians are leaving Anglican churches over this issue, whereas I very much doubt egalitarians are finding themselves in that position. Complementarians are agonising over their future in the denomination, and complementarian would-be candidates are painfully considering pulling out of ordination; whereas no egalitarian these days has to face such heart-wrenching decisions.

Finally, with women having been well and truly admitted to the episcopate, egalitarians now have all their hopes and dreams realised. Complementarians, on the other hand, are left with a church denomination which has in a decisive and irreversible way rejected our view.

So no, I'm not trying to hold anything over anybody. We complementarians are simply not in a position to do that!

cheers, Jereth

[Jenny George-2]

Jereth wrote:

There is only one outspoken complementarian on Ridley faculty.

Likewise I only know of one outspoken egalitarian on Ridley faculty - which I suppose goes to Matt's point about Ridley being quite careful to allow both sides of the debate within the college without forcing a particular line.

Jenny

[Matt Williams]

Hey Jereth,

I'm not quite sure you grasped the whole of my reply. I do want to apply those texts to myself as regards complementarians, and that is what I was trying to do, and indeed encourage other egalitarians to do. I just think the call should come from people on the same 'side'. (I wasn't suggesting you were holding the texts over me in particular, I fully intend to hold them over myself in any case!)

I guess the use of the Pauline texts depends on whether you see the kernel of 'weaker' brothers as being those who allow less freedom per se, or those whose pre/extra-Christian religio-cultural assumptions have not yet been fully reformed by the gospel - I'd tend to go for the latter, hence my suggestion there are ways complementarians could also apply the texts to themselves.

I actually do know what it feels like - the reverse feeling is available to any egalitarian in Sydney, as I was, and indeed many Melbourne evangelical egalitarians were in former lives! To even admit to doubts about the complementarian position there is to invite being written off as a liberal without further discussion. Part of the reason I moved to Melbourne, to start again knowing no-one here at all, was to have the space to be allowed to wrestle with scripture honestly without the sense that my ordination was forever on the line if I came to the 'wrong' conclusion. The dominant Sydney ethos there assumes a direct equation between egalitarians and rejection of the authority of scripture, and the Sydney style is much more directly hostile than the Melbourne one. For that reason I am very sensitive to any mirror-reversing of that marginalisation on complementarians in Melbourne, and have openly opposed it.

But whoever is the weaker brother, the weaker brother argument should never be a controlling factor in determining the official teaching of the whole church. Whichever position it has decided is a correct expression of gospel freedom, the church ought to defend it, exercise it and teach it actively (but with love and respect) until it is persuaded otherwise. That active defence, exercise and teaching does not itself amount to a disrespecting of the conscience of weaker brothers, but provisions for them ought only take the form of specific practical and pastoral provisions from their local context, not a legal restriction on everyone until the 'weak' catch up.

I hope that's a bit clearer.

Blessings
Matt

[Luke Isham]

I think of two outspoken egalitarians on Ridley faculty and one more reserved half egalitarian.

[wei-han kuan]

Can I have a quarter outspoken complementarian with that side order of four silent egalitarians on a sesame-seed bun please?

[Matt Williams]

What's a half egalitarian? Someone who believes women can hold positions of authority over short men?

[Luke Isham]

:) or half egalitarian, I don't know if that makes the glass of water half full or half empty!

This unnamed faculty members believes wives should submit to their husbands but believes woman are to be allowed to have full authority within the church.

[Jereth]

G'day Matt,

You are not the first person to describe the difficulty of holding egalitarian convictions in Sydney. At least one other individual has given me a similar story, and I do sympathise.

I agree with you that while the church should always cater lovingly for those within it who are "weak" in conscience, it cannot allow its practices to be forever restricted by the views of a negligible minority, providing that it has come to a definite theological conclusion that allows for greater freedom. [Although personally I am not convinced we've reached this stage in Melbourne, which is why I raised this stuff about "strong" and "weak" to begin with. 20-30%, if such anecdotal statistics are reliable, is not a "negligible minority" in my opinion. Also, in my opinion, the debate has not yet been decisively won on a theological level, even if it has been won on a populist level -- witness the absence of a comprehensive and theologically robust egalitarian argument that can be found on paper, and is not simply a re-hash of discredited arguments from popular American literature. Not to mention the significant number of people -- possibly equal to the convinced egalitarians and complementarians combined -- who are personally undecided, and think that both views are valid, even though in practice they tolerate an egalitarian model of ministry.]

All of which brings me back to what I said earlier: my own personal conviction is that the healthiest way forward in the long run is that complementarians and egalitarians worship in separate churches. This would end the present situations in Melbourne and Sydney where one view dominates and effectively forces the other side to comply (which, I would suggest, turns it effectively into a first-order issue rather than a second-order one). You would no longer have frustrated, unhappy minorities who feel perpetually alienated and marginalised and without a voice. Rather than battle each other bitterly and endlessly on what should be a second-order issue, we could get on with global mission in a cooperative way while practising our preferred model of ministry in our own churches on sunday. Most relevant to this discussion, both complementarians and egalitarians could go forward with a sense of theological integrity, without having their sense of "freedom" in the gospel forever threatened by a bunch of theological "weaklings".

Again, I think a great analogy is the Baptists and Anglicans. What you have is not a schism or mutual excommunication, but a simple "geographical" separation arising from a deeply important albeit second-order dispute, which serves ultimately to relieve an otherwise unrelievable tension.

One of the 2.7 egalitarian Ridley faculty members once said that it is not possible to be on the fence on this gender issue -- you have to be one side or the other. (Sorry Luke but there's no such thing as a half egalitarian! It's like being half pregnant, or half dead ) I think he is right, and therefore it makes little sense for the denomination to clumsily accomodate both sides indefinitely. Ultimately, we should all decide what side we're on and find a church which practises our preferred model.

I'm happy for people to disagree with me on this... just give me some good reasons!

Jereth

[Jenny George-2]

Jereth wrote:

 [Although personally I am not convinced we've reached this stage in Melbourne, which is why I raised this stuff about "strong" and "weak" to begin with. 20-30%, if such anecdotal statistics are reliable, is not a "negligible minority" in my opinion.]

I suspect the number of complementarians in Melbourne is 20-30% in a few more conservative parishes and much less in other evangelical parishes (e.g. at a guess I'd say St Hilary's Kew is much less than that). And then apart from 1-2 outspoken Anglo-Catholic parishes (approx 60 - 80 people in each) everyone else is pretty much on board. That means that I reckon the number comes out to about 5% of the diocese as a whole. So it's unlikely to become a live issue in any but a very few parishes.

Jenny

[Jereth]

Hi Jenny,

It's all guesswork really isn't it. But let's say the proportion really is that low (or at most slightly higher, like 10-15%). If we all just quietly move to Christ Church Hawthorn and find ourselves a male bishop to provide us with alternative oversight surely that won't be too disruptive or divisive to the Church as a whole will it?

Then you can have your co-ed preachers and we can have our bloke preachers, and all the arguing and discord can end, and everyone will be happy!

cheers, Jereth

[David Paton]

Hi Matt,

I agree that the Melbourne diocese has to have an official position on the issue.  Though its members have a range of views, it wouldn’t be workable to say it is ‘undecided’ on the matter.  But it is advantageous for Perth to have alternative Episcopal oversight.  I would say that it is more than a pastoral consideration.

The analogy that a carnivorous person can eat a vegetarian pizza with less qualms than a vegetarian eating a meat-lovers is important.  I also know of people who have decided that this is an issue of obedience.  The question presented to them if they are in a meat-lovers church is about obedience.  I’m not saying that an egalitarian doesn’t also endure difficulty in attending a conservative church.  But I think that the obedience aspect in the mind of a complementarian is important to the debate.  My friends, who came from various churches, had to decide to switch to different Anglican congregations.

Maybe there won’t be as much congregational movement happening as people expect.  It might take place more gradually as time goes by.

Cheers,

David

[Jereth]

Okay, I'll admit from the start that this post is going to contain a Big Whinge.  But seeing as I've already come out of the closet with my views on this issue, I may as well go ahead because, as I said previously, I think respectful openness is important. I also think it is important for Christians to hold each other accountable for views expressed in the public sphere.

Last year, I borrowed a book from Ridley library called "Women, Leadership and the Church" by Jim Reiher and published by Acorn Press in 2006.
https://acornpress.net.au/component/page,shop.product_details/category_id,13/
flypage,shop.flypage/product_id,30/option,com_virtuemart/Itemid,26/

Reiher is a lecturer at Tabor College Victoria. However, he clearly writes for an Anglican audience as revealed by the final chapter in the book which deals with the topic of female bishops, the fact that the book was published by Acorn, and the fact that the book carries an endorsement by someone from Ridley.

In this final chapter, Reiher discusses the question of how complementarian (I think he calls them "traditionalist", or "heirarchicalist", or something like that) Anglicans will react when a woman is inevitably installed as bishop in Australia. Here's a rough paraphrase of what he says (I don't have the book in front of me now so I can't quote exactly).

"Complementarian Anglicans have been able to hold out in their denomination, even though there are female priests and female preachers, because they can tell themselves that there is still a male bishop exercising leadership over everything. But what will they do when the denomination eventually ordains a female bishop? Then there will no longer be a male person occupying the highest office, as their views require. I suspect they will then convert to Roman Catholicism, where they can still be under male bishops and a male pope for a while longer, until that denomination also starts to allow women into ordained office."

Can I just say that I found this paragraph highly insulting, uncharitable, and really quite unchristian. It is astounding that Reiher can conclude his book on this sort of note, when he began it by claiming that he wishes to persuade complementarians of his point of view in a forthright and friendly way. Even if his exegetical and theological arguments happened to be persuasive (which I found not to be the case), the malignant spirit expressed in these words undermines the integrity of his case. It is upsetting that this book was published by Acorn and is being commended to evangelical Anglicans in Melbourne. I might add that if a Roman Catholic read these words they would probably be quite insulted too.

I am thankful that so far the egalitarian participants in this forum have been civil towards us complementarians, and hope that civility continues on both sides. I also desperately hope that there aren't too many egalitarian evangelicals out there who, like Reiher, are just hanging out to bid us good riddance once Melbourne appoints a female bishop and we leave for Rome.

Jereth