Nabble - MASG

Re: Melbourne's first female bishop to be consecrated on May 31

2008-06-22T01:53:20Z

Jereth wrote:

In my view, this will sooner or later (actually, sooner) involve directly confronting the egalitarians over their understanding and interpretation of Scripture. We need full and frank public disclosure about where we stand. And we need to be able to tell our egalitarian brothers and sisters, lovingly but firmly: "You are in error, you have misunderstood the Scriptures; and while we can support your ministry in a general way and from a distance, we cannot work with you, we cannot employ you in our churches, and we cannot work under you in your churches".

Is this also what you have in mind Tim? Or, do you envisage complementarians being able to stand up and move forward, assume leadership etc. in a more "hidden" and less "confrontational" way?

No less hidden, but perhaps less confrontational. As I've said in various places in the past, and as at least one other complimentarian speaking about ministry in Melbourne has also said, my commitment to effective gospel ministry turns disagreement over this into a second order issue. It's important, but I think there are bigger fish to fry.

And for me, I don't just take this line pragmatically, I also believe I have a good Scriptural precedent. I know you're going to want me to demonstrate that and I'm happy to do so at some stage, but just now I'm trying to get a whole lot of work finished off before I head interstate and so I'm going to leave you hanging... (insert smiley faced thingo here)

Tim

Re: Melbourne's first female bishop to be consecrated on May 31

2008-06-22T00:18:22Z

Gordon Cheng wrote:

My definition of 'complementarian' is well summarized by the Equal but Different website, and would include churches which permit women to preach but exclude churches where such preaching was permitted in the context of mixed congregations (thus excluding, I think, Carlton and Doncaster).

You mention Carlton (i.e. St. Judes). Can I just say (as I've said once before, I think) that I am quite happy to live with Richard Condie's publicly expressed policy of male headship, with occasional female "preaching" "underneath" that headship. I believe that there is a place for women addressing the mixed congregation in a manner that does not contravene 1 Timothy 2:11-15. We need to work out what Paul meant by "prophecy" (1 Corinthians 11) which clearly is allowed, and "teaching with authority" (1 tim 2) which is not allowed.

A problem evangelicals suffer from is that we usually reduce "public word ministry" to the "Sunday sermon". (Once in a while we may also allow the "personal testimony".) However, Scripture envisions a range of other public word ministries: the "word of encouragement" (Acts 13:15), the "lesson" (1 Cor 14:26), the "revelation" (1 Cor 14:26), "prophecy" (1 Cor 11) and so forth. I think that many of these other public word ministries are not "authoritative teaching", and are therefore open to women. If we allowed the regular exercise of some of these other ministries in our Sunday services -- by both men and women -- while keeping the "sermon" restricted to men, perhaps that would resolve some of our problems.

Tim wrote:

If you're interested in the view of a particular congregation, why not just ask the minister directly and see what they say? Seems a pretty straightforward approach to me.

Fair enough... problem is, when I'm a long-term committed member of one church and have never met these other ministers, it can be a bit difficult to ask them directly! Are we supposed to go on a massive tour of Melbourne churches, asking them one by one where they stand?!?

I'm glad for those of you who responded to my challenge too. It was a bit blunt I admit, but I do think some of us need to see ourselves as the new leaders who will rise up to the long and hard task of working for postive change and growth within a denomination that has gone astray at many points. I'm confident that a good number of those new leaders are already around within our church and I'm excited about they might do in the years ahead.

I've been wanting to ask you this Tim, and didn't get a chance previously (including during our little chat at church today). My question is: are we all clear exactly what is involved in being "the new leaders who will rise up to the long and hard task of working for postive change and growth..." ? In my view, this will sooner or later (actually, sooner) involve directly confronting the egalitarians over their understanding and interpretation of Scripture. We need full and frank public disclosure about where we stand. And we need to be able to tell our egalitarian brothers and sisters, lovingly but firmly: "You are in error, you have misunderstood the Scriptures; and while we can support your ministry in a general way and from a distance, we cannot work with you, we cannot employ you in our churches, and we cannot work under you in your churches".

Is this also what you have in mind Tim? Or, do you envisage complementarians being able to stand up and move forward, assume leadership etc. in a more "hidden" and less "confrontational" way?

Re: Melbourne's first female bishop to be consecrated on May 31

2008-06-21T21:55:51Z

Luke Isham wrote:

Jereth has asked a good question although perhaps definitions of complementarian and egalitarian churches are in order. I doubt there would be many churches in the entire Diocese of Melbourne that would actively promote the complementarian position, some may tolerate it, others actively promote an egalitarian position. If we are unable to name them publicly then maybe there is a problem and the complimentarian grievances are genuine?

I'm not going to give a list here. As I've said elsewhere, I think it's up to individual churches and church leaders to speak for themselves rather than to have to wear the labels that others stick on them. Some may be complimentarian but don't want that to be their primary identifying characteristic. Others may be complimentarian but have a nuanced understanding of what that means. And there may be some that are complimentarian but haven't even thought of themselves using that language. Anyway, my point is that I don't think this is all about being 'allowed' to go on the record, it's more to do with letting churches speak for themselves. If you're interested in the view of a particular congregation, why not just ask the minister directly and see what they say? Seems a pretty straightforward approach to me.

I'm glad for those of you who responded to my challenge too. It was a bit blunt I admit, but I do think some of us need to see ourselves as the new leaders who will rise up to the long and hard task of working for postive change and growth within a denomination that has gone astray at many points. I'm confident that a good number of those new leaders are already around within our church and I'm excited about they might do in the years ahead.

Re: Melbourne's first female bishop to be consecrated on May 31

2008-06-21T13:23:14Z

Luke Isham wrote:

some may tolerate it

If 'toleration' is the criterion, then I guess non-Melburnians are being asked to believe that the whole diocese is complementarian!

My definition of 'complementarian' is well summarized by the Equal but Different website, and would include churches which permit women to preach but exclude churches where such preaching was permitted in the context of mixed congregations (thus excluding, I think, Carlton and Doncaster).

Personal blog. Matthias Media blog.

Re: Melbourne's first female bishop to be consecrated on May 31

2008-06-21T04:54:04Z

Jereth has asked a good question although perhaps definitions of complementarian and egalitarian churches are in order. I doubt there would be many churches in the entire Diocese of Melbourne that would actively promote the complementarian position, some may tolerate it, others actively promote an egalitarian position. If we are unable to name them publicly then maybe there is a problem and the complimentarian grievances are genuine?

Re: Melbourne's first female bishop to be consecrated on May 31

2008-06-21T03:48:33Z

Jereth wrote:

(Aside: if it is possible to name these congregations online, that would also help prove that churches and their leaders can be open and public about being opposed to women's ordination rather than having to live in the closet)

I'm quite interested in this question too. I would be astonished (and pleased) to hear of more than three. The two conservative Anglican churches that I have best knowledge of—St Jude's Carlton and Holy Trinity Doncaster—both allow women to preach semi-regularly, as I understand it. Happy to be corrected, though.

Personal blog. Matthias Media blog.

Re: Melbourne's first female bishop to be consecrated on May 31

2008-06-20T07:32:18Z

Hi Tim.

Appreciate the challenge. You're absolutely right -- opponents of women's ordination need to be proactive and constructive, and not just a bunch of whingers.

Can I please make a few comments.

Speaking for myself (and no doubt many other complementarians too), I suspect that for much of recent history we have been living option A. That is, we've been well aware that the Anglican church takes an egalitarian policy of ordaining women and allowing them to lead and preach to mixed congregations; and we disagree strongly with this (not to mention the strain it places on our consciences), yet for the sake of peace and harmony we have avoided contention and labored away in our churches with the gospel as our priority. (Those who really couldn't tolerate it probably left not long after 1992)

What has happened in 2008 is that the ordination of a female bishop has upset the status quo. Those who had managed to accommodate to the previous situation, and were practising option A for many years, find themselves thrust out of their comfort zone again and feeling that their place in the church is being seriously threatened. So yes, as you observe, there is now some major complaining (option B) going on. But let's be clear that the provocation has come from the other (egalitarian) side -- we had been doing the right thing. I don't recall a great deal of sooking or whining prior to April 2008.

There are a good number of significant Melbourne Anglican congregations that are led by complimentarians and that teach a complimentarian line... We have no reason to think that they're being closed out.

Would it be possible to name these congregations on this web forum? I ask this because myself and a couple others are wishing to visit some complementarian-led congregations with a view to possibly relocating in the near future. It would help us to know where we can visit! (Aside: if it is possible to name these congregations online, that would also help prove that churches and their leaders can be open and public about being opposed to women's ordination rather than having to live in the closet)

So then, I guess my challenge for the complimentarians is to get on and make a difference. Go forward.

What I'd like to discuss some more is "how?". But I'll leave that for another time

cheers, Jereth

Re: Archbishop Freier on Euthanasia bill - well done

2008-06-20T07:21:53Z

Reading what the Archbishop has written on Euthanasia, I wonder whether he is actually conservative on abortion as well. After all, he appears to endorse "the principle of the sanctity of life". By contrast, this principle of the sanctity of life did not rate a single mention in the entire Anglican VLRC submission about abortion, which instead went down the track of relativising human worth.

Perhaps the Archbishop found himself in a situation where he had delegated responsibility to the 8 women (minus one who quit the committee), and then had his hands tied when they delivered a piece of trash back to him. This time round, he may have been thinking: "If I want a job done properly, I'll do it myself."

But that's all speculation, of course.

Jereth

Re: Archbishop Freier on Euthanasia bill - well done

2008-06-20T03:50:23Z

Thanks for mentioning this, Jereth. I agree that the Archbishop's statement was helpful and very welcome.

If people are not familiar with the details of the Euthanasia Bill, the current Bill is a piece of proposed Federal Senate legislation, put forward by Bob Brown, and is an attempt to overturn the legislation with which the Howard government blocked the NT 'Rights of the Terminally lll Act". It is made more complicated by the fact that the original legislation did so by denying the right of Australian Territories to make laws concerning euthanasia. This means that some people are supporting the new Bill because they want euthanasia, while others are arguing for the right of Territories to legislate on whatever they like.

People interested in this issue might appreciate some of the submissions to the Senate Committee, which can be found at http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/legcon_ctte/terminally_ill/submisssions/sublist.htm, along with the text of the actual Bill (which is incredibly brief!)

Justin

Re: Melbourne's first female bishop to be consecrated on May 31

2008-06-20T00:31:14Z

Hi all, amusing...

Tim Patrick wrote:

I would have thought that when a complimentarian finds an egalitarian line is being pushed in their diocese, they are faced with two ways to live. They can either a) Make their objections clear and then get on with the hard work of building the church that they're a part of, seeking it's ongoing reform and renewal and it's return to gospel purity (or however they want to phrase it) or they can b) whinge and sook and continually daydream about running away to some nice, special place where everything's easy and the church is already near-perfect.

Tim, just come out and tell us all what you really think!

At last, Tim has called our bluff. I for one welcome that challenge Tim. But truth is, Complementarians are now in a complete 'leadership' vacuum. They just aren't represented by anyone! So I suppose they are simply grasping for anyone to hear their gripe and hopefully help them. We need to give them some time to adjust to this enormous blow before hammering them about their whining.

I don't think those who take option b) ought to be classified as sooks or whimps, but just desiring to leave a situation where their conscience will not allow them to continue (I mean isn't that the reason our Diocese originally offered AEO to them - so they could stay?). I think we all need to extend the hand of fellowship to those who leave because of their biblical convictions. As I'd hope that those who decide to depart would continue to support and encourage those who stay.

Make objections clear and then just get on with it. If only it was that easy! If it were that simple then Complementarians might not even need to make any objections, simply just get on with it as most Evangelicals have done for so long. It all depends on how much we think Church order matters I suppose. I for one want to stay and 'get on with it' but this needs to play itself out a little more before we truly know where we all stand...

Until then it may be better to reserve our judgments on those who express their insecurity and anxiety about the innovative decisions our Diocese has made.

Re: Melbourne's first female bishop to be consecrated on May 31

2008-06-19T23:36:05Z

Gordon, maybe Tim thinks that 'planting new churches' is part of option b? Is that right Tim, is this a sort of 'grass is always greener syndrome'? Please clarify.

Re: Melbourne's first female bishop to be consecrated on May 31

2008-06-19T22:40:30Z

Neither option addresses the excellent possibility of planting new churches.

Personal blog. Matthias Media blog.

Re: Archbishop Freier on Euthanasia bill - well done

2008-06-19T16:51:18Z

I believe the Archbishop has a genuine commitment against euthanasia and I would guess this is a long held, and thought through, position. Remember that it was in NT (where the Archbishop was before Melbourne) that euthanasia was legal until Kevin Andrews' private members bill some years ago. I can't imagine for a moment that the Archbishop is pushing a conservative line because of the abortion issue last year.

Fully agree with strong support when we agree.

Re: Vale David Williams

2008-06-19T16:43:07Z

Wei-Han, Great to see the obit in The Age this morning. Thanks so much!

Re: GAFCON prayer meeting

2008-06-18T22:09:04Z

Hi Tim,

Wei Han has put me onto this site, so perhaps you can call me a friend of Melbourne Anglicans.

I can't make your prayer meeting, but we @ Mentone Baps are very much praying for what takes place at GAFCON.

Murray

Re: Melbourne's first female bishop to be consecrated on May 31

2008-06-18T17:43:48Z

Fair criticism. Good challenge.
But I note option a is broken into two parts. I think you could argue that we are seeing a1 here. Let's pray it is accompanied by a2.

Re: Melbourne's first female bishop to be consecrated on May 31

2008-06-18T17:31:33Z

G'day Jenny and all,

Jenny George wrote:

But since I guess I'm one of the few egalitarians on here then - yes - I am worried about the way these protocols have been worked out. I agree that they make it very difficult for individual clergy whose conscience may drive them towards needing alternative episcopal oversight but whose congregations won't necessarily vote that way. It's unfair and likely to be divisive.

Thanks for this. It's great and healthy for us all to see that it's possible to hold an egalitarian position without necessarily being pleased about the way that position is being secured in a particular place at a particular time. There's some good integrity here.

I want to stir the pot with a simiar thought but from the other side of the fence. As a complimentarian myself, I'm not particularly inspired by the way that the complimentarian complaints are being presented at the moment - both in this forum and in other places too.

I would have thought that when a complimentarian finds an egalitarian line is being pushed in their diocese, they are faced with two ways to live. They can either a) Make their objections clear and then get on with the hard work of building the church that they're a part of, seeking it's ongoing reform and renewal and it's return to gospel purity (or however they want to phrase it) or they can b) whinge and sook and continually daydream about running away to some nice, special place where everything's easy and the church is already near-perfect.

I guess I've just found myself a bit surprised to see so many of my complimentarian buddies going for option b). While the complimentarian complaint has often been that Melbourne lacks leadership with the backbone to stand up and fight for what's right, the irony is that the sook-and-run response is itself pretty wimpy.

I reckon if you haven't got the gall for it, you should make your clear public statement and then leave and go and do your good gospel works somewhere else. Don't stay and make a habit of whining. That doesn't help anybody.

On the other hand, why not take up the leadership challenge? Why not try to be that positive force for long-term change instead of just complaining that it's not there? And, despite so many disparaging comments to the contrary, you can do this within Melbourne Anglicanism. There are a good number of significant Melbourne Anglican congregations that are led by complimentarians and that teach a complimentarian line (when it comes up in their expositional preaching that is, not just week by week because they're riding their hobbyhorse). These have only increased in the last decade. We have no reason to think that they're being closed out.

So then, I guess my challenge for the complimentarians is to get on and make a difference. Go forward. The church isn't going to be renewed by you endlessly rehearsing its faults but by you doing something positive in it. Anyone up for that?

Tim

Re: Melbourne's first female bishop to be consecrated on May 31

2008-06-18T03:57:45Z

Danny Saunders wrote:

Gordon wrote:

"But if I was there on the ground, and tended towards a conservative theological view, I would be deeply dismayed by the latest developments and probably looking for a parachute into a friendlier denomination, or into independent church planting."

Do you know where one could get funding for this sort of thing? The northern kingdom isn't looking to extend into Mexico perhaps?

Sure, why not?

The only rule to remember is, there is no money. (It's a variation on a rule I've always lived by, which is, 'There is no cavalry—so, don't look over your shoulder, because all you will see is the dust of retreating reinforcements!' ;-)

But you are better off getting courageous men who trust God to lead this, than any amount of subsidized government or non-government funding.

I think what you need here is a local man who will plant a church and, if he feels it will be of benefit to him and the people he is leading as he serves the Lord Jesus, he should approach someone who will give some structural backing to him.

[edit: oops, pushed a button I didn't mean to.

So the first thing I would do in such a situation would be to look for a local Melbourne sponsor, if you felt you needed one. Maybe there would be a Presbyterian who would stick their neck out for you, but if you wanted an Anglican to support your cause, well this list is pretty short and you probably know it better than me. Mind you, the Anglican who does this in Melbourne will draw the full wrath of a lawyered up Melbourne diocese, so he will need to be a faithful man who trusts Jesus and can bear a fair bit of pain for himself and his family.

What an exciting thing to be a part of, though! My hope and prayer is that as Anglicanism restructures, this sort of local initiative will become easier. But it needs to be locally led, really. Missionaries into Melbourne can help but they shouldn't be running the show permanently.

Personal blog. Matthias Media blog.

Re: Melbourne's first female bishop to be consecrated on May 31

2008-06-18T00:59:27Z

Jenny George wrote:

On the sentence that I bolded above, however, I don't know that it's intentionally making conservative clergy a dying breed. Given Tim's legitimate questions about how you safeguard the episcopacy from becoming a "choose your own boss" situation, I think there have to be some protocols and I'd put some probability behind the chance that these are rushed and less than perfectly thought through rather than assuming they are Machievellian. It's possible but not the only explanation.
Sorry it's taken a while to write - am overseas and only just noticed that this hadn't been answered by anyone else.

Hooray! Thanks Jenny. I was beginning to fear that the "better wrong on women but right on the gospel" deal was a one way street.
Choose your own boss? Sounds cool to me.
They're all Anglican bishops, right, so where's the bad? ;-) (this one's rhetorical)

Re: Archbishop Freier on Euthanasia bill - well done

2008-06-18T00:45:58Z

G'day all,

There was an open letter in last Saturday's Age along these lines too (maybe the same one) and it was signed by our Archbishop along with Megan Curlis-Gibson and Denise Cooper-Clarke.

I've written in to TMA to commend them on this stand already and Roland has taken my letter.

A couple of comments.

1. We should be as vocal in supporting this statement as we were in opposing the abortion submission. We don't want to be the kind of people who only see the bad and not the good. We don't want to just criticise and never be thankful. I plan to write to the Archbishop directly and I would encourage others to the same. When we feel he has represented us and our faith well, we should let him know.

2. I wonder - without any evidence at all - if this public statement is in part the fruit of the appropriate fuss we kicked up about abortion. I know some Anglicans can tend to think that the higher-ups don't pay much attention to the lower-downs but it's good to consider that perhaps we are listened to and our concerns are sometimes taken seriously.

Thanks for flagging this for us Jereth.

Tim

Re: Melbourne's first female bishop to be consecrated on May 31

2008-06-18T00:32:34Z

Andrew Moody wrote:

This is an extremely imprtant point, Phil.
We were assured at the vote on women in the episcopate that clergy who wished to apply for alternative oversight would be able to do so. But that is not what this protocol offers - rather it allows parishes to apply for alternative oversight. Those ministers who wish to hold to the standards of the Bible and 2000 years of church tradition must go cap-in-hand to their own congregations and, as long as not more than 34% don't dislike the idea, they can then make the application - and pay a small fine for the privilege.

It is clear that this is intended to make conservative and traditionalist clergy a second- (and dying) class. [edit: bold by Jenny] Under this system, no conservative evangelical (such as some of the most senior evangelical clergy in Menbourne) would ever be able to take over and reform a more liberal parish where there is a female bishop in charge since the parish would never agree to it. I hope my egalitarian evangelical brothers and sisters are as disturbed as I am to see that this well-intentioned development shaped into something that looks like fratricide-by-attrition. What were we saying about diversity again?

Andrew - didn't realise you needed a response to the last paragraph (sounded more rhetorical to me). But since I guess I'm one of the few egalitarians on here then - yes - I am worried about the way these protocols have been worked out. I agree that they make it very difficult for individual clergy whose conscience may drive them towards needing alternative episcopal oversight but whose congregations won't necessarily vote that way. It's unfair and likely to be divisive.

On the sentence that I bolded above, however, I don't know that it's intentionally making conservative clergy a dying breed. Given Tim's legitimate questions about how you safeguard the episcopacy from becoming a "choose your own boss" situation, I think there have to be some protocols and I'd put some probability behind the chance that these are rushed and less than perfectly thought through rather than assuming they are Machievellian. It's possible but not the only explanation.

Sorry it's taken a while to write - am overseas and only just noticed that this hadn't been answered by anyone else.

Re: Melbourne's first female bishop to be consecrated on May 31

2008-06-18T00:11:58Z

Danny Saunders wrote:

Do you know where one could get funding for this sort of thing? The northern kingdom isn't looking to extend into Mexico perhaps?

We wish.

Though if Melbourne isn't going to provide conservative clergy with adequate episcopal oversight to protect their consciences (and perhaps their employment), who knows? Adequate episcopal oversight might have to come from somewhere else.

Interestingly, this issue is causing England their own share of strife.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/17/anglicanism.religion1
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4144508.ece

Re: Melbourne's first female bishop to be consecrated on May 31

2008-06-17T21:57:09Z

Gordon wrote:

"But if I was there on the ground, and tended towards a conservative theological view, I would be deeply dismayed by the latest developments and probably looking for a parachute into a friendlier denomination, or into independent church planting."

Do you know where one could get funding for this sort of thing? The northern kingdom isn't looking to extend into Mexico perhaps?

Archbishop Freier on Euthanasia bill - well done

2008-06-17T06:03:35Z

Archbishop Freier has issued a good public statement about the Euthanasia Bill which is currently being debated in the Victorian Parliament. He upholds the sanctity of human life, warns of the dangers of legalising euthanasia, and upholds the role of palliative care for the terminally ill. Thank you, and well done.

http://www.melbourne.anglican.com.au/main.php?pg=news&news_id=11982&s=1472

If anyone wishes to write to their local Parliamentarians on this issue, presenting a Christian perspective, I recommend using the automatic system on the Australian Christian Lobby website:
http://www.makeastand.org.au/home/index.stw

From my experience working in Palliative Care back in 2005, Bishop Freier's remark about the effectiveness of palliative medical treatment is accurate. The overwhelming majority of terminally ill patients die with dignity and without a great deal of suffering. We were able to use powerful medications to manage pain and other symptoms, and in the very terminal stages of life patients could be completely sedated (i.e. made unconscious) until they died naturally. Relatives were almost invariably satisfied with the standard of care. Interestingly, while I was there (only about 10 weeks) all 4 of the doctors on the unit happened to be Christians! 3 of us were Anglican and 1 was a Baptist if I remember correctly. I don't think it was entirely a coincidence that the 3 permanent medical staff there were committed Christians...

Jereth

GAFCON prayer meeting

2008-06-17T02:17:41Z

This coming Monday night the 23rd of June at 8pm there will be a special GAFCON information and prayer meeting at St Jude's, Carlton - on the corner of Lygon and Palmerston Sts.

In the first part of this meeting I'll give a broad outline of what's currently going on in the worldwide Anglican Communion and how GAFCON fits into this. This will be pitched to the interested lay person and so won't give all the fine details. There might be a brief time for a few questions of clarification.

We'll then spend time as a community praying for GAFCON, Lambeth and the Anglican Church generally. We'll try to have a focus on the mission of the church that's been hindered by the present problems.

I envisage the whole night being wrapped up by 9.30pm

Please come along and invite anyone who you think would be interested. Some of you might like to advertise it at your churches on Sunday.

In Christ, Tim

PS. If anyone wants to offer to help out with a simple supper...

Re: Climate change and the Melbourne Diocese

2008-06-16T22:58:18Z

Hmmm...

I wonder does the earth hear us? Maybe we should be evangelising the fish in the Yarra, in a non-confrontational sort of way of course.

Seriously it disappoints me to see money, time and publicity wasted in this way. I wonder, with Christians being persecuted across the globe, suburbs of people in need of evangelism, abortion issues, people who lack water now, we have to focus on this as a Diocese.

Re: Climate change and the Melbourne Diocese

2008-06-16T17:15:57Z

Hi guys - seems we missed our chance to place a pebble in a dish and say sorry to the earth! More green posturing from our esteemed Diocese.

Melburnians are being called to say “sorry” for damage to the environment in a series of public services timed to coincide with World Environment Day on June 5.

Anglican Archbishop of Melbourne Dr Philip Freier will join with the regional Bishops of the Anglican Church in Melbourne to lead services at St Paul’s Cathedral, to highlight our collective responsibility to care for the environment.

Each day from 2 – 5 June, special prayer services will be held by the bishops, to aid in “celebrating creation,” to say sorry for the “poor stewardship of the earth,” and to highlight the theme of World Environment Day, CO2 Kick the Habit. Themed “stations” will be set up around the Cathedral, and services will feature readings, conversation, song, and the opportunity to light a candle or place a pebble in water as an expression of connection with the earth.

“Increasingly, we are coming to realise that abuse of the environment is damaging not just the earth, but also ourselves as spiritual beings, whether we identify as members of faith communities or not,” Dr Freier said. “But it is all very well to talk about theological principles. We need to act on them, reflect on them and pray about the situation that confronts us.”

Where: St Paul’s Cathedral, Cnr Swantson and Flinders Streets, Melbourne
When: Prayer services 1-1:30pm Monday 2 June to Thursday 5 June, Interactive stations open from 12pm Monday and then all through the week during Cathedral opening hours (9am – 5pm).
Photographs and filming welcome

Re: Questions about this forum

2008-06-15T15:40:02Z

Thanks Tim,

(And Jenny) I've lowered my star threshold to zero!

Keep that spending that budget wisely Tim!

Luke

Re: Questions about this forum

2008-06-15T00:55:37Z

Hi all,

Couple of comments about the site for you.

1. Stats - they exist and I look at them regularly. You all don't have access at this stage. Why not... ? Dunno. Might get around to thinking about that at some stage. Good news (from my perspective) is that we've been receiving more and more traffic since we began and can now see upwards of 60 visits per day.

2. Nabble Forum - Yup, has lots of quirks and is far from perfect. But given that the budget for this site is exactly $0, it seemed that jumping on board with their service was a good economic decision. If anyone knows of a better free, embedable discussion board program, let me know and we'll think about it.

3. Ratings - I saw that they existed but have never really fussed with them. I can't say why some people rate others up or down. I'm not particularly pleased to hear that anyone has been 'rated out' of the discussion and am glad for Jenny's advice on how we can change our settings to see their posts. I do retain the power of veto but don't particularly want to wheel that out (though I will if necessary).

Ciao, Tim

Re: Questions about this forum

2008-06-14T22:40:12Z

I don't know who/how the ratings actually got changed from their defaults (I hadn't really noticed that each post was ratable until lately). But I have noticed that each person gets to choose at what point a rating is officially below their viewing "threshold". This is an user-specified option called a "ratings filter" at the top of each screen, and it has a default of 2 stars.

I agree with Luke that this probably isn't necessary until/if we actually see spam starting to appear. And in any case moderation can probably take care of that just as well as a rating system. So is it possible for the forum owners to turn the ratings off?

Re: Questions about this forum

2008-06-14T06:10:00Z

Luke Isham wrote:

However probably more annoying is that I noticed that Andrew B. has only a two star rating, if the rating system is only to block spam why, unless evil person hacked into his account and posted spam is his rating low?

Yeah, me too, I'm only 2 stars! What gives? I know I'm irritating, but I'm not spam!

Vote for me, all you friendly Melburnians, and I will sign the next climate change protocol and make sure your fuel prices stay low!

Oh, and thanks for these forums as well.

Personal blog. Matthias Media blog.

Questions about this forum

2008-06-14T02:43:32Z

Hello the powers that be,

Maybe it's the Nabble software itself, and maybe it's too complicated to change and we'd loose all the debate that has occurred so far but it's disappointing not to be able to see interesting stats like how many registered users there are or who is online.

However probably more annoying is that I noticed that Andrew B. has only a two star rating, if the rating system is only to block spam why, unless evil person hacked into his account and posted spam is his rating low? I read the Nabble information thingo and it said posts that drop too low in stars get bumped off. Unless it's some weird form of theological content rating, for which Andrew might deserve only two stars? (Just kidding Andrew! ) Or have you disabled that feature so it doesn't matter what gets posted? Is so how will spam get deleted?

Which brings me to my third observation. Generally the site is easy to navigate and pleasing to look at unlike the poorly arranged comment system at the Melbourne Anglican. But Nabble, not the best looking or feature heavy forum software I've seen!

Anyway, powers that be,

Keep the documents coming, the forum maintained, the site paid for etc. It's a great thrashing ground for the Evangelicals of Melbourne and beyond! (When I move back to Tassie I want to be able to keep an eye on things in Melbourne.)

Re: GAFCON

2008-06-14T02:26:28Z

Hi Gordon!

While I think there is a time to split regardless of loss of resources, resources per say aren't bad things. Take for example the various wealthy individuals who supported Paul. Then there is also the tabernacle, God could have stayed on Siani but had resources used to build a tent with lots of bits pieces. Later the temple God didn't really want built was destroyed by God so resources definitely are only for a time but I don't think there is a Biblical precedent for them to be shunned.

Of course the tricky bit will be to determine *that* time.

Re: GAFCON

2008-06-14T00:14:26Z

Jereth wrote:

I don't disagree with any of that, but it must also be balanced against this:

[3 chunks of Scripture omitted]

The time is short, do not worry about tomorrow, and separate yourself from false teachers. Could there be a time when clinging to church property and buildings keeps us from obeying these commands of Scripture?

Jereth

Yes - my post was balanced against my earlier statement:

Jenny George wrote:

Chuck the buildings if you need to

so obviously I agree there can be times when it's not wise to cling to church property and buildings.

Re: GAFCON

2008-06-13T21:17:33Z

Jenny George wrote:

I suspect most people who give significant amounts of money - e.g. settlers from the mid-1800s who often had very little to come and go on - and build a building don't "get the benefit" in their lifetimes. I suspect that most of them are conscious that their giving is not just for them but also for the countless others who will come after and will use the building that they have helped to fund. If we were thinking on a purely cost/benefit basis for our own lifetimes we'd probably always choose to rent premises. It's interesting that they didn't use this calculus. They were almost certainly explicitly thinking with a longer time horizon as they made their decisions. We can still choose to ditch the buildings because that's the right decision for us now. But it's a helpful corrective from Wei-Han to remember that others had a longer time scale. Maybe we should too. Are we also thinking of hundreds of years worth of Christians and their needs for resources? Are we thinking about how our decisions now will affect their ability to do ministry? Hopefully we are, and thanks Wei-Han for reminding us that the church is a living body that will go on beyond our own deaths and that considering things on a very long time scale is something that makes sense for the church (even though it doesn't for individuals).

I don't disagree with any of that, but it must also be balanced against this:

This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away.

Therefore do not be anxious, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' 32For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. 33But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. 34 "Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.

14 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15 What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? 16What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, "I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.17Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you,18 and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty."

The time is short, do not worry about tomorrow, and separate yourself from false teachers. Could there be a time when clinging to church property and buildings keeps us from obeying these commands of Scripture?

Jereth