seeing in a mirror dimly

This weekend’s conference was a great time for myself and Tanya to consider our own traditions, our own experiences, and most of all our understanding of Holy Scripture. In trying to reflect on the conference, I’ll touch on some practical things, some theological things, and will try to tie a few loose ends together.

Coming down to Melbourne for this conference caused a small level of anxiety before I left Sydney. Coming from Moore Theological College, and as a Sydney Anglican candidate, I was aware that it was likely for me to be in the minority. Moreover, I was nervous about the polemical nature of this issue, and the fact that I could be found guilty by association! What I found was that the more thoughtful speakers and guests of the conference withheld the polemic and vitriol, and extended a Christian grace for those who differed in opinion. Yet, it was true that Moore college, the Sydney diocese, and complementarians copped a lot from some who couldn’t resist the temptation – this was a little unfortunate in my opinion. Whilst there was nothing to excuse the rhetoric, there was often good reason to explain it. What I mean, is that I heard many, many stories of those who had been rudely offended, belittled, ridiculed and in some cases, sinned against due to their opinion on this very issue of gender in church. So, I was aware of the polemic and vitriol which can extend to both sides of this debate. What I’ve learnt is that it is important to extend grace to those who differ in opinion. It’s of the utmost importance to cling to the truth, yet it is also of the utmost importance to love our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Listening to the audience was an interesting thing also. There were many people from various denominational backgrounds: Anglican, Uniting, Pentecostal, Presbyterian. A few things repeated really took my interest: There seemed to be a slight disparity between the topics of the speakers, and the questions from the audience – often the topics were heavy theologically, but the questions were quite light on. Complementarians were often lumped together into one single monolithic position (even though some of the speakers correctly noted that there was a range of views within the complementarian camp). The Spirit-empowered giftedness of believers was often considered the supreme guide when deciding on how to regulate church order – Scripture was not often noted as the norm which norms other norms. This is the sort of thing I heard during a panel discussion:

Person A: If we prevent the power that God has given us, then that is disobedience.  when we see people’s ability to minister restricted by the church, then that’s a travesty.  One level of restriction: explicit and implicit.  The question is whether it’s innate in us, or whether someone tells us.

Person B: We cannot know whether a call of a person is valid or invalid. We should never prevent someone’s perceived calling.

Person C: You need to explain why women were so effective on the mission field. How can you disobey God and be so successful?

Here are some short reflections on each of the major sessions I attended:

• Graham Cole #1: Graham really showed a deep Bible knowledge and love, and gave brilliantly succinct and on-topic answers to some tricky questions. Also, I thought it excellent that no caricatures were made of any ‘Sydney’ or ‘Complementarian’ groups. There was a real Christian theological integrity shown. My only question was as to whether it seemed to frame the debate in potentially unhelpful ways: ie., when restricted and unrestricted women’s ministry is linked to broken world and new creation, respectively – are we not unhelpfully polarising the debate? Even if (and Graham Cole did not) we don’t point to finger to who this might be, doesn’t it implicitly as the keynote address of the CBE conference, mean that the CBE people are the new creation people, and non-CBE people are broken-worlders? The aforementioned false dichotomy is simple, but possibly unhelpful…
• Graham Cole #2: This was the paper which I found most interesting during the whole conference. Positively, Graham very carefully highlighted some of the dangers in using the Trinity as a model for human relationships. Where it got very interesting was his engagement with Karl Rahner. Karl Barth got a mention, but not much engagement. For my money, I think that he ought to have engaged with Barth’s ‘Way of the Son into the Far Country’ for the completeness of his paper. Because I’m not so sure that Cole’s paper adequately dealt with how Robert Doyle (Moore) would put forward the issue (God is as he is toward us etc.). In other words, real engagement between Cole’s theology and Robert Doyle’s theology might have produced some fascinating discussion!
• Kevin Giles #1. Kevin Giles is a brilliant scholar – in fact, he was the senior student at Moore college many moons ago. But what I felt let this session down was the amount of heated polemic which seemed to carry the argument. Whilst Kevin was making some genuinely fair points (and some quite profound ones I might add), the rhetoric really made it less convincing. Whilst some people might very well make far too much of 1 Timothy 2, I simply don’t think that complementarians read the whole Bible through the lens of 1 Timothy 2. We must say something about what 1 Timothy 2 teaches us about Genesis 1-2, but by doing that we aren’t necessarily making 1 Timothy 2 the hermeneutic key for reading all of Scripture. Thus, I think that Kevin made a lot of excellent points (particularly on the exegesis of Gen. 1-2 themselves), but in my opinion, the overall framework of the argument was flawed.
• Tim Foster #1: This deserves a better summary. It is quite a solid paper, albeit with quite a few spelling and grammatical errors. But it engages with current scholarship and proposes a new way of reading 1 Timothy 2:8-15. A lot of Tim’s argument seems to rest on the cultural context of 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Priscilla and Aquilla. He makes the claim that ‘all’ of the women at Ephesus were led astray by the ascetic teaching, and that is what the 1 Tim 2 prohibition is on about. I’m certainly no expert here, and would need to spend some more time on the historical and cultural context in order to evaluate it properly. But, my general query is about how much of Tim’s argument rests on this cultural reconstruction – Tim’s reading makes it seem so simple. It could be quite profound, but on the other hand, simplicity raises some warning flags for me too. Anyway, the jury’s out – I’ll let the exegetes fight that one out!
• Cheryl Catford #1: Probably the most unconvincing of the sessions I attended. It felt like she was trying to bite off more than she could chew in the allotted time. What I felt was the biggest problem for Cheryl’s argument was that she pitted offices against Giftedness, and the organic against the institutional. I suppose this strategy would have been OK, except that her work on disproving offices was a bit light on. Eg., I found it simply astonishing that 1 Timothy 3 got such a small look-in – perhaps no wonder, since gender is explicitly linked to office there! So, after office was dismissed, Gal. 3:28 (and other texts) were produced to promote Giftedness, and the case is closed. Q.E.D? Not in my opinion. I think that there is much more Biblical evidence for office than Catford would like to admit. And office is linked to gender. Godliness and Giftedness but not Gender is incorrect. In my opinion, the criteria are Godliness and Giftedness and Gender.

Update: Tanya reminded me over lunch today about how we learnt about what our ‘weak-spots’ are.  I thought that I would add to this summary, that one of the great things from attending a conference like this, was that my presuppositions and assumed knowledge comes under scrutiny.  I think I’ve greatly benefited from realising the nuances and important little distinctions assumed in my position, which need to be fleshed out and explained.  Without them, some of the complementarian arguments can be misunderstood (ie., the discussion pertaining to Eternal Relationship Subordination and taxis).

Let me close with a few warm remarks. Chris and Di Appleby (of St. Thomas’, Burwood) were very kind and warm hosts during my time in Melbourne. Chris runs a great and keen evangelical church in Burwood, that I’d heartily recommend visiting! Kevin and Lynley Giles were very warm in fellowship during our time down there, and I was made to feel like a brother in our conversations. Bob and Shirley Andrews, who kindly encouraged me to attend the conference, were both great encouragements during my time there. I was reminded of the great wisdom which can be learnt from those older brothers and sisters in the Lord. All in all, it was an excellent conference. Well run and well attended. I’m thankful to the Lord for the opportunity to learn and be sharpened. Whilst I’m still a Complementarian, I’ve got a whole lot of time for my Egalitarian brothers and sisters in Christ.