• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

First Aussie female bishop consecrated

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tiffanya

Senior Veteran
Apr 15, 2007
3,980
1,619
✟33,528.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Friday, May 23, 2008
7 hours 50 minutes ago

2305_goldworthy_a_lg.jpg

Bishop Kaye Goldsworthy, Australia's first female bishop








Australia's first woman bishop was consecrated in Perth on Thursday night amid lingering controversy over her appointment.
Archdeacon Kay Goldsworthy, 51, became Bishop Kaye Goldsworthy at a ceremony conducted by the Australian Anglican primate, Archbishop Phillip Aspinall, in Perth's St George's Cathedral.
Twenty-one Anglican bishops from Australia and New Zealand were among a congregation of more than 800 to show their support for last month's controversial appointment, which was closely followed by the appointment of Victorian vicar Canon Barbara Darling as the nation's second woman bishop.
Not present at the ceremony were opponents of the ordination of women, including the head of the Sydney diocese, Archbishop Peter Jensen, and his brother Phillip Jensen, dean of Sydney's St Andrew's Cathedral.
While the Sydney diocese is recognised as Australia's dominant opponent of the ordination of women, the Bishop of Northwest Australia, David Mulready, was also among notable absentees from the service.
Bishop Mulready says he will not permit Bishop Goldsworthy to officiate in his diocese.
The president of the Sydney-based Anglican Church League, Dr Mark Thomson, has said the Perth decision "adds a new level of difficulty to the relationship between the various dioceses in Australia".
Delivering the sermon at the service, Dr Aspinall made only brief reference to the controversy surrounding Bishop Goldsworthy's appointment.
"The bishop is a teacher of the faith. This doesn't mean unthinkingly regurgitating formulae from the past," he said.
"Guarding and teaching the faith means bringing the depth of the church's inheritance to bear on today's questions.
"This can lead to the disclosure of aspects of Christian truth that have been forgotten or gone unexplored. The church is a place where things can happen for the first time."
One of the presenters of the crosier at Bishop Goldsworthy's consecration was the former Anglican primate, Archbishop Peter Carnley, who ordained Archdeacon Goldsworthy as one of Australia's first women priests in the same cathedral in 1992.
Now retired for two years, Archbishop Carnley was succeeded as head of the Perth diocese by Archbishop Roger Herft, who appointed Bishop Goldsworthy and consecrated that appointment.
Archbishop Herft and his diocesan council came to the unanimous decision following an agreement last month 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.
This followed the affirmation by the church's legal body last year that it would not breach church law to appoint a woman bishop.
Archbishop Herft has said Bishop Goldsworthy's previous experience as a school chaplain, canon of the cathedral, parish priest and archdeacon meant she was "one of the best qualified priests to take on this role".
He said women bishops were currently serving in the United States, Canada and New Zealand and that "Australia has been a while catching up".
The mother of twin boys, who has been married to husband Ben for 20 years, has said it was unlikely she would feel slighted by parishes not accepting her ministry, having first felt a call to serve the church at the age of 16 and faced criticism over the years.
"I've travelled a path where there's always been someone or some group that doesn't agree or doesn't want to receive your ministry, so I won't feel slighted," she told AAP last month.
"I'm always sorry that we have such differences and I wish it were different, but ... I want everybody to see that the ministry of women is to be valued and celebrated."

Link to the story > http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=567867
 

karen freeinchristman

More of You and less of me, Lord!
Site Supporter
Aug 18, 2004
14,806
481
North west of England
✟84,907.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
America already has one...and from what I've heard she's a doozy. We beat the Aussies!!! Only the coolest people on earth! Lol. Just kidding.

This does not bode well for my Anglican brethren.
America has many more than just one female bishop.


Anyway, re: the OP - good for her! :clap:
 
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Site Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
31,080
10,069
NW England
✟1,303,349.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Doesn't 1 Timothy 2:11-12 frown upon women in positions of leadership within the Church?:confused:

No.
There is a debate about this over in the General Theology forum at the moment, if you want to join in.
 
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Site Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
31,080
10,069
NW England
✟1,303,349.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No.
There is a debate about this over in the General Theology forum at the moment, if you want to join in.

Denying the blatant sexism of the bible is picking and choosing. Either it's all correct or none of it is.

:confused: Define "correct".
 
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Site Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
31,080
10,069
NW England
✟1,303,349.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Define "correct"? How about "infallible word of god."

Something can be correct for the culture and customs of the time it was written, without having to be applied and rigorously obeyed by us today.

Consider your earlier statement;

Either it's all correct or none of it is.

Is Paul's teaching about it being disgraceful for men to have long hair, correct? How about women covering their heads in worship? Or Timothy ceasing to drink only water but drink some wine as well because of his many illnesses? What about his teaching about widows (1 Timothy 5:9-14)? He says that unless a widow is over 60, has been faithful to her husband and is known for her good deeds, she cannot be put on the list of widows (and so may not have qualified for financial support.) Younger widows should not be put on such a list because sooner or later they may be overcome by their sexual desires and want to marry - thus breaking their pledge to their first husband (who is dead!)
Paul also gave detailed instructions about the treatment of slaves.

The early church sent a letter to gentile believers telling them to abstain from blood (a verse the JWs use to justify not allowing people to have blood transfusions. Acts 15:20)

Jesus told us that if our right hand causes us to sin, we should cut it off and throw it away.

The OT tells us that the earth has 4 corners (so it is square or oblong), the sun pitches a tent in the sky (it lives under canvas, apparently) and uses many other images to describe the ways of God or his world.

Are all of these things correct? If not, going by your earlier statement, then none of it is - throw out the whole bible and the Gospel because certain images and metaphors aren't literally true, and some of the teachings are not applied today.

That is why I said "define correct". Correct and literally true, correct and applicable for us today, or correct teaching/advice/imagery for the people to whom it was written, at the time it was written, but to get to the truth for us today, we have to study it in context?
 
Upvote 0

skeptikk

Junior Member
Jun 20, 2008
17
3
38
✟22,653.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Why does the bible have to be examined in context? And why do Christians feel like they have the right to pick and choose what is still culturally relevant and what is not? I think if God really inspired the bible, it would be 100% relevant across all societies. There'd be no question.
 
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Site Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
31,080
10,069
NW England
✟1,303,349.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Why does the bible have to be examined in context?

Everything you read and hear has to be taken in context. Haven't you heard of government ministers and tv stars who say things, and, when only part of what they say gets quoted by the media, claim they have been quoted out of context?

There is a well known story - I don't know whether true - about someone who wanted to find God's will for his life, so he opened his Bible at random and read the words "then Judas went and hanged himself". Thinking that this probably wasn't right, he decided to try again and came across the words "go and do likewise". He decided to try one last time and read "what you have to do, do quickly". All three verses are in the Bible; taken out of the context in which they are set, they could be applied to anything.
As can any other verse.

In order to really understand what the Biblical writers were getting at, and what those they wrote and spoke to would have understood by their words, we have to look at what was going on at the time, and the language, customs and understanding of the people. Images that people used then, may not be understood or may mean something different to us now. For example "The Lord is my shepherd", will conjure up for us pictures of shepherds we see on tv or in life. Western shepherds drive the sheep from behind, eastern shepherds led from the front. We won't know this unlesss we study the culture.
Some of Paul's teachings address the heresies that were around at the time - for exmple, gnostics believed that the body was evil, corrupt; God couldn't have become flesh, so Jesus wasn't God. Paul taught that our body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, God lives IN us.
John also had trouble with Gnostics, which is why he said that if a person does not acknowledge Jesus has come in the flesh, that person is not from God.

Language has changed a great deal, even in my lifetime. The NT was written in Greek, translated into Latin and then English. These languages may have different words for things, or a word may not exist in one language to convey the meaning of another. For example, there are 3 words in NT Greek for "love" - English has only one. We can love our husband, love our brother and love chocolate - but they mean different things. Somebody reading the Greek NT can see immediately which word is being used, and will understand its meaning. We won't, unless we find out. Even the English language has changed. When I was young, "gay" meant happy - today it has a very different meaning. Ask a teenager today what "wicked" means, and then tell them that God destroys the wicked. Will they understand you?

And why do Christians feel like they have the right to pick and choose what is still culturally relevant and what is not? I think if God really inspired the bible, it would be 100% relevant across all societies. There'd be no question.

We don't "pick and choose", we study the words, the situation, the culture, the background and what type of writing is being used.

"The sun has pitched its tent in the heavens", is poetry. It doesn't have to be literally true, but the sentiment the psalmist is expressing - wonder at God's marvellous creation - is true.
"Jesus was born in Bethlehem " is either true or false. It's a fact which can be checked and verified or disproved. If it's verified, then it's literally true.
"Do not murder" is either a command to be obeyed, or a piece of cultural advice. In our society, the law agrees with this teaching. For us, it is literally true. In some countries it is permitted to kill women who disobey their parents and shun arranged marriages. This is called "honour killing", and is legal for them in their society; better a woman die than bring dishonour to the family name. Extremists in oter religions may kill someone who does not worship/recognise their god. Sadly, Christians have been guilty of that in the past.

Even within the Bible there are many different cultures, and not everyone follows them all. What makes you think that the cultural customs of 1st century Palestine have to be observed by us today? Do you keep the OT laws? If you are a man, have you been circumcised? Do you eat pork? If not, why not? They are God's laws and are written in the Bible.
There are no mobile phones, computers, internet, DVDs mentioned in the Bible. Do you use these? Why - if the Bible is relevant across all societies, and it doesn't say that they are allowed?
In Saudi Arabia alcohol is an imprisonable offence. It wasn't in Jesus' day, nor is it in our country/society. What's a Saudi christian to do - obey the Bible, which allows drinking, eg wine at the Last Supper, or obey the customs of his country?

The reason there are so many commentaries, theolgical books, Bible colleges etc is to teach us and help us to study and understand the Bible and ways of God. When you go to Bible study, you will study the meaning of a passage. Preachers and ministers study the Bible before teaching and preaching. Google the word "exegesis" and see what it says.

And you still haven''t answered my question - were the examples I quoted from the Bible correct or not?
 
Upvote 0

Nadiine

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2006
52,800
48,336
Obama: 53% deserve him ;)
✟292,219.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Why does the bible have to be examined in context? And why do Christians feel like they have the right to pick and choose what is still culturally relevant and what is not? I think if God really inspired the bible, it would be 100% relevant across all societies. There'd be no question.
Well, the same reason you have to read speeches and news and any other secular thing in context - context frames the thought.

And it is relevant... the majority of the world just reject it as such or truth.
As far as this world is concerned it's about good for some philosophical points made by a "peaceful" man (or prophet) named Jesus; nothing more.

Jesus said the majority would reject His word and this is true.
 
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Site Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
31,080
10,069
NW England
✟1,303,349.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Last night, the Church of England synod voted to ordain women bishops. :clap:
(Though I think there will be some safeguards for men who really can't accept them.)

I think this is great news, but it does make you wonder. For years, the synod said to women "you cannot be ordained", and the women were expected to put up with it. Some were badly hurt as a result, some may have left the church. But a handful of clergy find the idea hard to accept, and suddenly we're talking concessions ... compensation.
Presumably no one minds too much if lay people are driven away from the church. :sigh:
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.