For more hit here
Further areas which have arisen in our conversations and which we believe require ongoing discussion among evangelicals include:
- 1. The effect on biblical interpretation of different understandings of the relationship between exegesis of specific texts in their original contexts, wider biblical theology, and the role of doctrine and systematic theology
- 2. The form and significance of creation order in relation to being made male and female, especially as revealed in Genesis 2 and later biblical appeals to it.
- 3. The doctrine of the Trinity, in particular whether or not language of submission and obedience is to be used for the eternal intra-Trinitarian relationship of the Son to the Father and the significance of any such order within the Trinity for the ordering of relationships between men and women in the church and husband and wife in marriage
- 4. The relationship between submission and obedience and whether there is a universal Christ-like mutual submission among Christians or a specific submission of wives to husbands whose position as head is to be understood in terms of |Christ-like authority
- 5. The connection between any ordering in relationship between husband and wife and any ordering of men and women within the ministries and offices of the church
- 6. The nature of episcopal jurisdiction and the provision therefore required for evangelicals opposed to women bishops when women become bishops
Although this particular process has now reached its end, we hope that it will mark the start of wider, ongoing discussion among Anglican evangelicals on the various issues which we have considered together. In order to resource this we will endeavour to make available on both our websites all the papers prepared and discussed at each of the three consultations.
I am very glad that they say this:
We therefore reject the view that our differences are to be explained in terms of either misogyny and cultural conservatism or secular feminism and cultural conformity. We believe evangelicals need to beware and repent of elevating exegetical disagreements in such a way as to deny Christian charity.
The Convenors are David Banting – Reform and Lis Goddard – AWESOME
7 comments:
Thank you for drawing attention to this, Rachel.
The Reform Covenant has already committed Reform to a clear stance on women's ordination to the presbyterate - that it is not faithful to Scripture and therefore should not be happening in a Church that submits to biblical authority.
Here is the Reform Covenant statement on it - Reform affirms 'the unique value of women's ministry in the local congregation but also the divine order of male headship, which makes the headship of women as priests in charge, incumbents, dignitaries and bishops inappropriate.'
If it is a 'divine order' then the practical response is not dialogue but obedience.
Kind regards,
Julian Mann
Thank you Julian,
Indeed, I am aware of the Reform position. How interesting that those of us hoping that dialogue might occur also might have to prepare to be somewhat disappointed.
However, the Kingdom continues to grow and women like me are called to proclaim the gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit and in submission to the Lord of Lords - Hallelujah!
God bless you in growing his Kingdom, may you see much fruit
I absolutely agree with you that we should submit ourselves to scripture. Have you considered that you should be living out this conviction rather than submitting yourself to the Reform statement? Are you open to hearing that I submit myself to scripture fully in obedience and this does not nullify my call from him to proclaim his gospel? My call does in fact come out of those very scriptures to which I submit myself?
Rachel
Thank you Rachel - it was not my intention to personalise this issue in relation to your call or mine. The point I am trying to make in relation to the Reform-Awesome joint statement that Reform is already committed in its Covenant to a stance that sees women's appointment to headship roles in local churches as unfaithful to Scripture.
In any dialogue surely you need to be clear on your non-negotiables.
Non-negotiable? By whose standards?
I think the whole point of the Reform-Awesome dialogue is to affirm that even with those whom we disagree we can still affirm that we are both evangelical in submitting to Scripture, even if different in regards to gender roles.
I understand that both Awesome and Reform would consider the non-negotiables to be the Gospel itself and the saving work of Christ for those who believe, as well as a commitment to the authority of Scripture and submission to its teaching.
The dialogue is not to make Awesome and Reform into one, or to make them agree on the issue of headship but rather to seek to understand the nature of one another's evangelicalism.
In my view, no bad thing!
Absolutely Suse, thanks for your contribution. This is why I sit rather restlessly with Julian Mann's response:
If it is a 'divine order' then the practical response is not dialogue but obedience.
I think we commit ourselves to dialogue anyway with the caveat that we are indeed being obedient to scripture. The debate to be had is over what that obedience looks like for women and therein lie the differences between the Reform/Awesome positions.
Perhaps the weight lies in Mann's 'If' - he is prepared to ask this question. Perhaps.??
Post a Comment