Spring has arrived this morning. It was eighteen degrees by noon, and to celebrate I am in shorts and barefoot. After Kirk we drove to a cafe, and got the first seeds for the spring planting of vegetables. The frost hardy things can go in now: we may have a snow yet to come, but the daffodils are up and the lambs are growing.

As are the weeds in my garden. The agenda this afternoon involves the use of that ancient weed control tool — the hoe.

The first text for today was the text for the sermon. It is one of Barry’s favourite texts, and it was expounded to him just following his conversion. His comment today was on how this needs to be taken corporately: that the verses do not only apply to us — although we have to look up the armour of a Roman legionary [1] — as individuals but as a congregation.

Ephesians 6:10-20

10Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his power. 11Put on the whole armor of God, so that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12For our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. 13Therefore take up the whole armor of God, so that you may be able to withstand on that evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm. 14Stand therefore, and fasten the belt of truth around your waist, and put on the breastplate of righteousness. 15As shoes for your feet put on whatever will make you ready to proclaim the gospel of peace. 16With all of these, take the shield of faith, with which you will be able to quench all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17Take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

18Pray in the Spirit at all times in every prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert and always persevere in supplication for all the saints. 19Pray also for me, so that when I speak, a message may be given to me to make known with boldness the mystery of the gospel, 20for which I am an ambassador in chains. Pray that I may declare it boldly, as I must speak.

Now, Barry talked about the belt, and the breastplate — and at this point he said something quite important. He reminded us that the heart of the congregation is not us, but the atoning death and then resurrection of Jesus. That we need to hold this.

He then said that this is where he needed prayer. Because his head was under attack. He was finding himself being influenced by the liberals — and that he used to be staunch in his faith. Now Will linked to a couple of examples of this, and they elaborate this point.

Firstly, consider the reaction of this “veteran Anglican women’s Activist”.

Then she began hearing uncomfortable stories about young women being told they were defying God in wanting to become priests, that it was a role reserved for men, that the “headship” teaching (which says women must be subordinate to men) was on the march. Women were being discouraged, even intimidated.

Porter was shocked. For decades Melbourne had been the diocese most supportive of women priests, and the issue seemed long resolved. But now, in the Anglican Church and in others, it seems to be a divisive issue once again, with a backlash unleashed and gaining ground.

The question is broader than whether women can be priests and exercise leadership over men, though that is usually how it is framed inside the church. It concerns all the roles women play in the church and in the home, where the once-traditional idea that they should submit to their husbands is gaining fresh traction.

This is being re-examined in churches around Australia: Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran, Pentecostal and others. Porter says the change in Melbourne and elsewhere is due to a rising number of hard-line young Melbourne ministers who are strongly influenced by resurgent conservatism in the United States. She says they are “very masculine and horrified by what they call the ‘chickification’ of Christianity”.

According to Kevin Giles, a Melbourne evangelical minister and veteran of the fight for women’s equality within the church, the issue is “about power—who has it and who doesn’t, who determines how the Scriptures should be read”.

Those who support the “headship” doctrine are called complementarians. They say women and men are created equal in value but with different roles, in which leadership is reserved for men. The biblical text they rely on is Paul’s first letter to Timothy, which says: “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man; she must be silent.”

The pro-equality group argues that these verses have a specific context and are not a permanent mandate. They rely on texts such as Paul’s letter to the Galatians: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ.” This group, who call themselves egalitarians, argue that ministry is based on abilities and not gender.

According to Giles, the debate is not about whether women can “minister”. He says: “Everyone is in favour of women’s ministry, because that can be anything—even making tea. The real key is leadership, headship. The debate is full of code words, but unpacked it means men lead, women obey.”

Giles and his wife, Lynley, a noted marriage educator, are sufficiently concerned that they have organised the annual international conference of Christians for Biblical Equality in Melbourne this weekend.

Okay. The entire disaster of women’s leadership within the church — and it has been a disaster, because it destroyed the complementary women’s wings of the church (The Association of Presbyterian Women, the Mother’s League… did a lot of practical good and gave a lot of practical teaching. Along with tea and cucumber sandwiches).

Now the same people talk again here. The NSW Anglican Church has revised their vows. And look at the liberals go…

The vows were written by the diocese’s liturgical panel, which has the imprimatur of the Archbishop, Peter Jensen. The panel chairman, the Bishop of South Sydney, Robert Forsyth, said ”submit” was a deeply biblical word.
Advertisement

”The Bible never said women must obey their husbands but Paul and Peter did say submit, which I think is a much more responsive, nuanced word.”

The bishop said no one would be forced to use the new version, and an alternative would remain available to couples who did not want the woman to obey (which has been optional since 1928) or submit.

Kevin Giles, a New Testament scholar in Melbourne, said the subordination of women was exclusively related to ”the fall” in the Bible and in 2012 made for bad theology.

”Jesus not once mentions the subordination of woman and says much in contradiction to this. Paul’s comments over the subordination of women fit into the patriarchal culture of the day and are not the biblical ideal. The truth is that happy marriages today are fully equal, and unhappy marriages are ones where one or the other party is controlling.”

Muriel Porter, a Melbourne academic and laywoman who writes on Anglican Church issues, said submit was a more derogatory word than obey and had connotations of slavery. ”Frankly I’m horrified,” she said. ”It is a very dangerous concept, especially in terms of society’s propensity for domestic violence.”

But Stephanie and Andrew Judd from Sydney, who used part of the new service when they wed in January, said those who were offended by the word were not placing it in the right context.

”The husband’s love is one of sacrificial love, and to submit to that kind of love is not oppressive, but is actually a joy and a great freedom,” said Mrs Judd, 26, who teaches Christian studies at a private girls’ school.

Mr Judd, 27, who is studying to be a minister, said a Christian marriage was akin to dancing: ”The male always leads, even if he’s not necessarily the best dancer … as long as you take the definition of male leadership that we’re operating on, which is giving yourself up and putting others’ interests ahead of yourself.”

Now, why should this matter?

Well, liberals have two errors.

The first is that they try to make things easy. It’s OK. That is not a sin. You love them. Yes, we will have a ritual for that. We are inclusive. We are tolerant (unless you are a right-winger, male, white, believe in the confessions and the bible, (any of the four, but the more you have the more we despise you). They remove the miracles, the hard sayings, the challenges… the context.

The second thing is that they project onto scripture, and Jesus, and tradition… the current fashions. Regardless as to if they are wise, Regardless of if they empirically make sense. The use of slavery for marital submission is a stretch. We are not Romans — where the paterfamilias had the power of life of death over his wife, his children and his slaves. Paul taught men to love their wifes and present them to Chris as holy and pure precisely because the culture around him considered women as valuable for pleasure and breeding, but not much more — in fact, many Romans preferred boys for pleasure, and saw breeding as a necessary duty.

What this leads to is that faith goes. There is no need for the gospel. because being politically correct and working for social justice is the gospel. There is no need for forgiveness, for there is no sin.

There is no need to talk about hell, because that is rude, and hidden (along with the consequences to children of our liberal divorce laws and feminized society) in a post modern cone of silence. And this robs the church of power.

You see, Christ can only work when there is faith.

Mark 6:1-6a

1He left that place and came to his home town, and his disciples followed him. 2On the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astounded. They said, “Where did this man get all this? What is this wisdom that has been given to him? What deeds of power are being done by his hands! 3Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offence at him. 4Then Jesus said to them, “Prophets are not without honor, except in their home town, and among their own kin, and in their own house.” 5And he could do no deed of power there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and cured them. 6And he was amazed at their unbelief.

Now, this does not mean that I am without sin. I am flawed, dirty, frail and weak. I come to Christ, daily for cleansing, strenght, and courage. Moreover, it does not mean that we should not be liberal with our possessions. We should instead give freely, and wisely.

It does mean we have to pray for our leaders. They have the harder part. And the temptation to follow academics down rabbit holes is great. Particularly as the academic is rated by his publications and quotes not his wisdom and if he teaches truth. The Pastor, instead, is accountable for his flock.
——-
1. I have never served in the Army, but my son-in-law does and I know people who do. The belt was a load bearing part of the armour — and belts still do the same thing. Ironically, troops have begun again to wear Armour as the risk of sniping and IEDs has increased.