Why think about women....(why not?)

Last Friday, John Woodhouse, the principal of Moore College, encouraged the students in chapel to think seriously about the role of women in ministry. He rebuked us for not coming to firm conclusions on this issue, saying that we did the women of our congregations a great disservice by being unclear. John outlined his position that, while valuing the equal status of women, denied them a role in preaching and teaching, as this was chiefly one of pastoral oversight, and in his view the Bible prescribed this role only for men. John urged conversation on the matter, and repeatedly emphasised the need for graciousness in difference. However, there were three strategies in his presentation that mitigated against this graciousness. Firstly was the continual use of the ‘world’ and it’s perceptions of male and female relations as the main foil for his argument. While John may not have meant it, this strategy instantly places those who disagree firmly on the pagan side of the equation. While the secular world may very well have different concepts of male and female relations, the argument against christians from secular failure holds about as much weight as charicatures of the conservative position as wife beating mysoginists. None. Neither of these rhetorical strategies do justice to the fact that there are faithful christians on both (all) sides of this debate. It essentially is the argument ‘I’m right because I’m a christian, therefore you are not a christian’.
The second unhelpful strategy is related to the first. John set out ‘the biblical data’, without argument or much comment on each passage (admitting the limits on time). This, combined with the allusions to the ‘world’, gave the impression that those with a non-hierarchical view were motivated by capitulation to the current worldview rather than faithfulness to the Scriptures. Again, this may be true at the level of the pews. But these things were said in a theological college, where we were being encouraged to think. The proponents on a non-hierarchical complementarianism are no exegetical or text critical lightweights. They include the likes of Gordon Fee and I H Marshall. If we are genuine about thinking this issue through, then carefully engaging with a book like ‘Discovering Biblical Equality’ is a must. These guys love Jesus and really do know their stuff. Having read them, it is far harder to nonchalantly plant your flag in the ground and claim the biblical high ground.
The third unhelpful strategy was the timing of the talk. It came one day after the ACL recruitment meeting, with John as one of the ACL’s guest speakers), and only days before the opening of the Sydney Diocese Synod, where womens ministry will again be debated. The reason given for the talk was the integration of Mary Andrews College (Womens) with Moore College. However, the two colleges have been integrated for ten months.Thus in a fairly charged environment, John put forth as normative for the College a policy which is more restrictive than the current diocese position (Which has provision for females preaching). Hardly opening up the floor for debate.
What has the result been? I can only speak from a very limited position, but from my view the result has been lacklustre. Those who agree with John had their views confirmed with very little in the way of argument. Those who disagree have either viewed this as an attempt to polarise the college, and so kept their heads down; or alternatively have capitulated

‘It’s not worth losing the opportunity to do gospel ministry in Sydney over this issue’.’

But is this the case? If John, and those who follow him, are wrong on this, then not only are we depriving the church of the work of leaders gifted by God to build it up; we are placing an uneccessary (and huge) stumbling block for the gospel in the way of 50% of the worlds population.

Either way, someone is going to lose (or already is denied) the opportunity to have a preaching ministry in Sydney.

Politics and church politics

Thinking of the current state of church politics in Sydney, some of us are dissatisfied with the current order, others are bent on convincing us that there are big nasty threats to that order, and that they are our protectors. On the one side is dissatisfaction that appears to lead to an uncertain future. On the other there is a satisfied sense of security that wants to keep things exactly how they are.

Byron had a great post on hope and dissatisfaction in politics back in February.


I wonder whether his musings on Moltmann could be helpful for both sides in our church politics.
Our desire for change doesn't have to come from demonising the present, but comes from the sheer goodness of the promised future of Christ. The certainty of that promise is what should make us dissatisfied with all politics that justify their own pragmatic (and sometimes underhanded) policies. Let me make this as blunt as possible. The ACL does not secure the future kingdom of God. Nor are they THE threat to it for that matter. They are neither the messiah or the devil.

Are we Lutheran?

"The consequences of imprecision in pneumatology may lead to a type of Lutheran quietism. Both clergy and laity can easily come to the conclusion that, as long as the Word is preached, the Spirit will be present, and sanctification will follow. They believe that proclaiming the gospel is necessary and sufficient for sanctification to take place." [my bold] p114 Jeffrey Mann, 'Luther and the Holy Spirit', Currents in Theology and Mission 34:2 (Apr 2007)

Ouch, how much does this sound like us!

One Matt comes, and another Matt is back

In the most celbrated poaching of talent ever, Matt Bales has bowed before the awesome power of this blog. He'll be posting his thoughts here on a random basis, so if any of the posts are bad...blame him.

In other exciting news, Matt Moffit is posting again over at Hebel. He is still trying to convince us that the story of Israel is important for us today. Pfff. It's like he thinks Jesus and Paul were Jewish or something.

Love the Lord your God

All this activity of the Spirit fulfils the purpose of the Law in believers. This fulfilment should not be separated from Paul’s rereading of Deuteronomy 30 in 10:4-9, where Jesus and faith in him are the telos of the Law. But nor should the Law’s fulfilment be seen as somehow limited by this. It is those who have the Sprit dwelling in and interceding for them that are named ‘ lovers of God’ (8:28), fulfilling the shema of Deuteronomy 6:4. The clear parallels between 8:18-39 and 5:1-11 should then guide our understanding of 5:5 to recognise tou theou as an objective genitive( or at the very least plenary). The Spirit then, fills believers with hope as it enables believers to fulfil the shema even in suffering, rather than by providing some internal, subjective sensation of God’s love. It is believers, offering their bodies as spiritual sacrifices who are to fulfil the law and all the commandments by loving their fellowmen in 13:8-14. The central position Paul gives the commandment of Leviticus 19:18 here, echoes Jesus’ summing up of the Law( Matt 22:34-40). While the Spirit is not mentioned explicitly in Romans 13, the language of obligation and fulfilment, the eschatological context( 13:11-14) and the later references to “walking in love”(14:15) confirm that “what is said here about love “fulfilling” the Law is in Pauline understanding a direct outworking of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer”.(Fee, GEP) Paul’s use of opheilete returns the reader back to Paul's hanging half sentence of 8:12. The believers putting to death of the misdeeds of the body by the Spirit is to be done in the context of love of the other.(also 15:2) The exhortation to “clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the flesh” in 13:14 , then refers backwards to the obvious debauchery of 13:13, but also forwards to the relationships between weak and strong in the Roman churches. Paul’s teaching about the Holy Spirit in the letter to the Romans forms a major part of his goal to bring about the obedience of faith in the new covenant people. He avoids the charge of anti-nomianism by showing how those with the Spirit, though not under the Law, fulfil the righteous requirements of the Law, love of God, and love of one another.


I, II, III

Holy Spirit

In Paul's letter to the Romans, the Spirit fulfils the purpose of the Law in the new covenant. The Spirit enables obedience and right worship, marks out the boundaries of the people of God, and brings the covenant blessing of eschatological life and inheritance. This purpose corresponds to Paul’s goals for his letter and ministry; to bring about the obedience of faith , that through his gospel both Jew and Gentile might glorify God through Jesus Christ ‘with one heart and mouth’ , and to encourage the Roman believers in their faith .
Paul’s teaching about the Holy Spirit in Romans defends, outlines and encourages the obedience of faith brought about through his preaching of the gospel. The Holy Spirit Spirit is the Spirit of holiness , that enables obedience and right worship, in fulfilment of the original purpose of the Law. After Paul has outlined the mutual culpability of both Gentiles and Law observers (1:18-3:20) , and the free gift of justification by faith in Jesus Christ apart from Law observance (3:21-5:21) , Paul raises four rhetorical accusations of anti-nomianism against himself . What role is there for obedience, if the Law is not the basis for justification? Paul answers these questions in two parallel passages, 6:1-23, in relation to Christ, and 8:1-17 primarily in relation to the Spirit. In 8:3-4 the righteous requirements of the Law are fulfilled, not by observance of the written code, but by the sacrificial death of God’s Son and by those ‘walking in the Spirit’. Already in 2:28-29, the Spirit is presented as the agent circumcising the heart, the very basis of fulfilling the Law in the Mosaic covenant.( Deut 10:16) The agency of the Spirit makes this a reference to the promises of a new covenant, the new eschatological age. (Deut 30:6, Jer 31:31-34, Ezek 36:26-27)
“They are now given as their guide, not indeed the law, which, although given by God, is unable to do more than condemn them for their sin, but the Spirit, so that the Mosaic covenant is replaced, as Jeremiah and Ezekiel said it would be, with the covenant written on the hearts of God’s people by God’s own Spirit”
Nicholas T. Wright , ‘ New Exodus, New Inheritance: The Narrative Structure of Romans 3-8’ . in Romans and the People of God: Essays in Honour of Gordon D. Fee on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday. 1999, 29
Dunn in his theology of Paul (643) however cautions us from seeing both 2:29 and the reference to the Spirit in 7:6 as a simple antithesis and replacement to Israel’s Torah ethic. The new covenant did not envisage a new law, but a more effective keeping of it. The problem of the Law is the weakness of the written code against sin and the flesh14 to circumcise the heart and bring about right living, rather than a defect in the Law itself. Paul's use of nomos touv pneumatos thvs zwhvs is “more than a clever turn of phrase” , but denotes continuity between the two ages. Paul’s antithesis is not between Law and Spirit, but the written code and the Spirit, or as Tobin notes (Paul's Rhetoric), flesh and the Spirit.




I, II, III

It's rehash essays Wednesday..... YAY!!

Is it inappropriate to post old essays on a blog? On the one hand, they are a bit dry. But on the other hand, they are a place where I've bothered doing some reading and thinking on a topic. Yet on my third hand, I usually don't leave enough time for writing those thoughts down, so they are a bit sloppy, but on the fourth hand.....
I'd better give up this deliberation before I become Ganesh.

So, in the spirit of poorly thought through decisions.... I will post old essays on Wednesdays.

You can always ignore the posts if they don't interest you.

First up is the Spirit in Romans