Traditional Theology Census

[OzSpen]

Both colleges have historical links to the University of Melbourne, which is why they're so close together.

Not exactly, about me. Okay, a bit of my story: I came into the church as an adult (was 22 when I was baptised). I originally attended a parish that was out on the charismatic-evangelical edge (although back then I didn't know that there were different kinds of Anglicans). I worshipped there for quite some years and was married there, but when I started to discern a vocation to ministry, they wouldn't support a woman who felt called to a leadership role.

So I moved from there and started exploring a bit. When I came to choose a college, I looked at and was impressed with both colleges, but I was very aware by then that I had had a very narrow exposure to the church, and I was still a relatively young Christian (I started college at 27). So I thought it would be good for my formation to develop some appreciation of the breadth of the Church by studying in the college of the less-familiar end of the tradition. Also, at that time Trinity had an arrangement with the both the Jesuit college and the Uniting Church college to share classes, so if I went to Trinity I would be studying with lecturers and fellow-students from other denominations as well. And I thought that would be good for me (and it was).

So I went to Trinity despite being probably the least Anglo-Catholic student there, and very much a fish out of water in terms of churchmanship. I did field placements in a range of settings - on both sides of the tradition - and my first curacy was in a very Anglo-Catholic parish. Now, in my second curacy, I work across two neighbouring parishes, one of which is evangelical and one is Anglo-Catholic.

Today I would say that I am able to work across the breadth of the traditions in Melbourne, in terms of liturgy and spirituality. I am not a liberal (at least, I don't consider myself one; I suppose some people would say an ordained woman is a liberal by definition), but boringly orthodox in my theology.

But I think it's also worth saying that despite Trinity having a "liberal" reputation, I didn't find its staff or teaching particularly so. On the whole my lecturers were profoundly godly men and women whom I could look up to as exemplars in the life of faith.

Paidiske,

I found your explanation to be a delightful description of your journey since becoming a Christian. I found it interesting that in this your second curacy you are working in 2 churches, one evangelical and the other Anglo-Catholic. I'm rather surprised that the evangelicals of the greater Melbourne area are comfortable with a female curate at the church. Is that OK with Melbourne evangelical Anglicans?

I do hope that your affirmation of being a female priest does not confirm you as a theological liberal. My sympathies are with evangelical charismatics (I'm not a liberal) and I affirm both men and women in ministry (pastoral leadership). I'm ordained with an evangelical denomination that supports women in public ministry. Making that statement may get some opposition on this forum. I can live with that as I've written quite a bit over the years in exposition of the place of women in ministry.

Blessings on you.
Oz

 

[Paidiske]

I'm rather surprised that the evangelicals of the greater Melbourne area are comfortable with a female curate at the church. Is that OK with Melbourne evangelical Anglicans?

Mmm... it's okay with some of them. In the evangelical parish where I'm working, I'm aware of one person who doesn't come to church when I preside/preach. Which is not too bad in a parish with an average Sunday attendance of about 70. But they have had female priests before me, which helps. My evangelical (ex-CMS missionary) vicar is very supportive, and that helps too.

There are evangelicals who are not really okay with it (and that's also true of the Anglo-Catholics, of course), and there is a bit of a backlash against us in some quarters, but we are hanging in there. About one-third of Melbourne's active clergy are women now, and we work across the spectrum of traditions.

And God bless you, too!

 

[OzSpen]

Mmm... it's okay with some of them. In the evangelical parish where I'm working, I'm aware of one person who doesn't come to church when I preside/preach. Which is not too bad in a parish with an average Sunday attendance of about 70. But they have had female priests before me, which helps. My evangelical (ex-CMS missionary) vicar is very supportive, and that helps too.

There are evangelicals who are not really okay with it (and that's also true of the Anglo-Catholics, of course), and there is a bit of a backlash against us in some quarters, but we are hanging in there. About one-third of Melbourne's active clergy are women now, and we work across the spectrum of traditions.

And God bless you, too!

Interesting! Here in Qld where most Anglican parishes are liberal, female clergy seem to be well received. I can't imagine that happening in the Sydney Diocese.

I understand those who don't support women in public ministry and where it comes from in particular interpretations of some NT passages, e.g. 1 Tim 2. My parents were Christian Brethren and very anti women in public ministry in the church gathering. However, I'm convinced from the exegesis, incl. context, and cultural practices of 1 Tim 2 and 1 Cor 14 that women have been made silent in evangelical circles through a view of the text that I don't find convincing.

One of the finest explanations of women in public ministry from an evangelical Anglican, Prof N T Wright, is in 'Women's service in the Church: The biblical basis'.

Here is my limited exegesis of the passage in 1 Tim 2: Must Women Never Teach Men in the Church?

It's bedtime in Brisbane.
Blessings,

Oz

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

But not an apostolic tradition.

Mark,

That is not what I've found in my research of the early church fathers. There is language in some of these prominent fathers that sounds awfully similar to Sola Scriptura.

See my article: Is there no ‘Scripture alone’ in early church fathers?

Oz

Holding Scripture in high esteem predates the reformation as OzSpen has shown with his great article linked above. Although not Sola Scriptura the way evangelical and fundamentalists view it; more the way that Lutherans and Anglicans view it. While eluded to and spoken about by the ECFs, it was not formalized into a doctrine until the time of the reformation; and even then Lutherans/Anglicans retained traditions where many of the radical reformers discarded them.

The value of Scripture is indeed Apostolic; the Apostles were the means by which they were given to the Church. An exclusive view of Sola Scriptura is not IMO.

 

[Albion]

The way I'd put it is that Scripture is cited, time and again, by the ECFs. They never cite "Sacred Tradition" as its equal or even as acceptable.

While it may be said that "Sola Scriptura" enters into the picture with the Reformation, it's only the expression that does; and since the term means simply, "That which the Church used before she began adding to it," there's nothing innovative about it. The term could just as easily have been "Scripture!...and we mean it!"

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

The way I'd put it is that Scripture is cited, time and again, by the ECFs. They never cite "Sacred Tradition" as its equal or even as acceptable.

While it may be said that "Sola Scriptura" enters into the picture with the Reformation, it's only the expression that does; and since the term means simply, "That which the Church used before she began adding to it," there's nothing innovative about it. The term could just as easily have been "Scripture!...and we mean it!"

The thing is that while they never cite "Sacred Tradition", Sacred Tradition is ubiquitous.

 

[Paidiske]

I can't imagine that happening in the Sydney Diocese.

Ha! No. Long way to go there.

The problem with arguing about whether the early church fathers took both Scripture and tradition as sources of authority, is that they saw Scripture as an expression of tradition; after all, it was tradition which defined the canon, was it not?

 

[Korah]

What strikes me is how good many women priests are, but on the other hand how bad are all denominations who go so against Tradition as to allow them as bishops or the like.

 

[OzSpen]

What strikes me is how good many women priests are, but on the other hand how bad are all denominations who go so against Tradition as to allow them as bishops or the like.

Really? I've heard some horrible male pastors, priests and ministers as preachers over about 50 years as a believer. If it weren't for the loyalty of the local congregation, many people would walk out and not return. I wouldn't walk one city block to hear such a preacher again.

I've responded to this in: The heresy of women preachers?
See also: Can the Sermon Be Redeemed?

Oz

 

[Korah]

And I disagreed with you in what way?
OK, maybe as a Baptist you don't differentiate between gradations of ministry, everyone ordained is the same. (So you're therefore not a typical Baptist who idolizes Billy Graham, then?)

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Admin Hat...

Let's stay on track; if you wish to debate, don't do it in this thread, start a new one. OK? A bit of light, general discussion is OK, but let's not start something that will derail this into an open debate of a topic. OK?

Mark
CF Admin

 

[OzSpen]

And I disagreed with you in what way?
OK, maybe as a Baptist you don't differentiate between gradations of ministry, everyone ordained is the same. (So you're therefore not a typical Baptist who idolizes Billy Graham, then?)

I do wish you would back quote. Also, you did not address the content of what I wrote, so your response is a red herring.

Oz

 

[Korah]

Retracted. We were told not to debate in this thread.

 

[Philip_B]

I am an Anglican Christian. Scripture Tradition and Reason.

 

[Albion]

See posts #133 and 131, Philip.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I am an Anglican Christian. Scripture Tradition and Reason.

Hello, Phillip, and welcome to CF and to TT!

We're glad that you've joined us.

I hope you're finding your way around CF well enough - if you have any questions or need any help, feel free to ask and we will be glad to assist in any way we can. From your posts though, it looks like you are making a start. We do have many areas, depending on your interest in discussion. The Statement of Purpose is generally a sticky at the top of each forum to help guide discussion in that area. With that said, Traditional Theology is one of my favorites.

Again, welcome! I pray that you are blessed by being here, and look forward to more of your posts.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I am an Anglican Christian. Scripture Tradition and Reason.

Hi Philip and welcome to TT!

 

[zeland2236]

Post here and your faith tradition so we can get a sense of who's who.

Roman Catholic Convert. Dr. David Anders PhD.
had a great influence on my understanding of the scriptural basis for the Catholic Church. Dr. Anders was a Presbyterian historian who did his Doctorate work in Reformation History. See his interview where he discusses Luther and the bible.

 

[Karl.C]

Raised in Kingdom Hall fellowship (JW) for the first 12 years of my life by my mother.

My dad though remaining in his RCC faith didn't infere (he had no real opportunity).

Mum left the JWs. After a while mum & dad split. I drifted about exploring eastern & western religions.

After weighing up the various "Christian" views I contemplated the Presbytereans but finally settled on the RCC because of its (for millenium) steadfastness & clarity of the apostolic faith & the hope of the resurrection.

I made my committment 17 years ago...and have no regrets...

 

[Karl.C]

Ha! No. Long way to go there.

The problem with arguing about whether the early church fathers took both Scripture and tradition as sources of authority, is that they saw Scripture as an expression of tradition; after all, it was tradition which defined the canon, was it not?

Agreed!

The earliest known advocate of sola scriptura was the heretic & gnostic Marcion of Sinope. In fact, it was he that established the first known canon = an edited version of Luke plus a selection of A.Paul's letters.

As has already been stated, it is the Church through ecumenical agreement that has given us our (modern) canon. As is often cited "the Church gave us the scriptures, the scriptures did not give us the Church". And it is the ecumenical Church/es that have given us our understanding of those scriptures.

Prior to our canon being established Clement, Ignatius and other late 1st century & early 2nd century fathers held as much authority as A.Paul's letters and formed part of the canon of various Orthodox assemblies. We only have to read who/what is appealed to in the early disputes whose acts are extant to us to see that "apostolic tradition as handed down from one father to the next" held sway over the written word (which is understandable given the number of pseudepigrapha that circulated in the early days).

It is also worth remembering that the canon of the Western churches is not universal. There are OOC groups that attest that the Book of Revelation is a gnostic work authored by the herectic Cerenthus. Apart from an ecumenical decision there is no way to convince them otherwise.

Similiar opinion is held about several of A.Paul's letters & so they are excluded from the canon of particular groups who in every other respect are in communion with the Orthodox Church (RCC,ROC,EOC,OOC etc).

Just a fact of history, that shouldn't ruffle anyone's feathers...