Jollyblogger offers an olive branch

JOLLYBLOGGER: Women's Roles in the Church and the Gospel.

And, as I said I am in agreement with the statement as a whole.  But I do think this last sentence in Article XVI gives the impression that egalitarianism necessarily damages our witness to the gospel, and I think that states the matter too strongly.

And the way I would state my own position in this regard would be to say that:

Egalitarianism may accompany compromise on the gospel, but it does not necessarily cause the compromise of the gospel.

My impression is that the last sentence of Article XVI implies the latter.

I feel this is helpful.

Note that I don't require all who do not believe women can/should teach, lead and minister to change their minds - but I do think two things are needed:

1. acceptance that other people can hold a different viewpoint and that view be respected. That means declaring that any other view is damaging the witness to the gospel is not acceptable.
2. respect for women from other traditions. This means that if your tradition does not accept women for ministry then you still need to respect and not attack women in other traditions.

Personally I find this quite a costly step, for me it feels like a betrayal of things I hold dear to accept and respect a complementarian view. No doubt those who are of the tradition that this statement comes from will also find this difficult. However, without us all making painful steps how can we come "Together for the Gospel"?

Comments

[Sally]

Goodness Dave you are certainly stiring up a storm! A good one though, I think we must all offer olive branches and be graceful enough to acept those we are offered, that way love may eventually win through.

I am apparently not doing anything at WH tomorrow, but will be heading in anyway to make sure I get the required hours in ! Malcom Browne has a reception in the dining room for his new book at about 5pm- so I'll probably go for that- a free glass of wine might just help! Hope to see you there.
Sally

[Bene Diction]

Help me understand.
How does David Wayne's olive branch matter?

I read his post, there is a fair bit of academic chatter under it. To the point of eye watering again.:^) Are academics the ones who most need to be addressing this?

Is Jolly Blogger in a position to influence and reason with the men that wrote the articles?

Is there anticipation there will be a changed outcome from the four leaders articles?

I'm sorry Dave, I'll be up front. I'm not at all convinced the conference leaders and attendees care what you or anyone else thinks. Nor am I convinced they are aware they shut out most of the universal church with their pronouncements. If they are, that was the point, wasn't it?

Seems it would be like trying to talk with the Vatican about married priests. It's not going to happen.

Anyone who disagrees with this article doesn't need to go off half-cocked and behave in a similar fashion, but the people hurt by this are real, particularly in the US - people that have to live under the signature leaders authority.

You've pointed out who they have harmed with painful eloquence.

I don't see how you are in any position to dialogue with the signees as a UK minister. Women aren't. Adrian Warnock isn't.

I would like to understand how David Wayne's olive branch matters. I don't understand how he has any authority to offer it.

I think I understand that as a fellow believer he may, and he has enough sense to be embarrassed and acknowledge those that are harmed.

[DaveW]

BD,

Good comments. I think olive branches are always valuable. I think anytime someone steps out from their position to offer something to others it is to be welcomed and celebrated. If you read the comments on Jollyblogger you will see that the T4G leadership have replied. That reply is very depressing, it shows clearly that they are quite happy with the statement and not at all worried about the dis-unity that that are promoting.

Now of course I have no formal position, no great weight of knowledge to be authoritive or whatever in this argument. But that is no reason for me to not engage. I also have no power when it comes to many other issues, it does not stop me buying fair trade, joining campaigns etc.

After all "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"

[joy sepe]

I was perflexed by the thought. I don't think the gospel is valued here. I don't understand what is the use of doing it. If one accepts that thought and aggries with it, there would other who will oppose to it. But it will all be useless because the others have to respect the other's views. There will surely be hurt because their part are being surpassed by the other. it really is a perflexed matters.