One way for government to help bring about more gender equality, is to not provide taxpayer's money to organisations that exclude one gender. So organisations such as the Office of Women would not receive taxpayer’s money.

The Baptist Church is different, in that it may not directly (or even indirectly) be receiving taxpayer’s funding. One way around this is to have a system whereby people are selected for a vacant position based on their resume, with their names crossed out

As with any 'trend' in 'The Church', it must be compared with the foundations on which it stands.

There is a clear scriptural mandate for women not to 'rule over men'
in the church. There is no reason I can see why women cannot contribute in many ways, but 'formal teaching of the Church' is not one of them.... and no, I haven't recently become a 'Taliban sleeper cell'. Read 1 Corinthians 11

The Church has indeed been at the cutting edge of much social change as mentioned in the article, "Amazing Grace" having been written by John Newton, former Slave trader, but gloriously redeemed in Christ.

Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound, which saved a WRETCH like me"

It is that grace, which turns slave traders into 'saints' from the inward out, the heart, which will also do likewise for each and every one of us who opens our hearts to Him. But if we deviate from the narrow and hard road which leads to salvation, we will find ourselves on the popular "highway to hell" as AC/DC put it.

We have a firm and sure foundation in the Scriptures;- to the extent we remain faithful to the revealed word, we will also see blessing in our communities and society.

"He who hears my words...and does them, is like a man who built his house on a Rock" said Jesus and he wasn't saying things which were easy.

To accomodate the line 'equality' of genders, in the way that produces affirmative action, is not helpful.

As for the High Court, and a female serving on the bench, Its not the 'Church' and there is precedent in the Old Testament in Deborah who was a judge and prophetess.

The author makes the point about 'guaranteeing a conservative' flavor and this suggests that a 'liberal' flavor would be there if Labor were doing the appointments, and this tells much about the supposed 'independance' of the Judiciary. Well, I don't think its innappropriate that the High Court reflects the mood of the country.

The only basis for appointment to the bench is "Merit" regardless of any other consideration be it "preservation of custom" or some "affirmative action" agenda.

I was pleased to hear Mr Ruddock advised such reason in the selection process.

With regard to appointment to the church(es) - who cares, they are an outmoded, corrupt and pointless group of organisations who have consistently placed the "clergy" above and before their congregations - both in the physical, spiritual and "rights" sense. The sooner people recognise and turn their backs on these deficient "priest classes", the sooner they will be able to start the journey to find real peace.

Come on BOAZ,take off your blinkers
To suggest that the Scriptures are the benchmark to human decency is typical of self indulging people promoting the supremacy of a particular Faith.
As you seem to hide behind subjectively chosen statements of the Bible , it is perhaps timely to read Matthew 7:15
The " Tower of Babel" , that Christianity has evolved into, carries many wolwes in sheeps clothing amongst some genuine religious institutions.The advent of American type of televangelists and radiovangelists are just one example of the degradation of the Scriptures by human beings posing as prophets.
There is only one God and the God of Christians is the same that the God of Muslims.It is only through the man made invention of Religion that human beings are being brainwashed from tender age into believing that THEIR religion is supreme.
God in his wisdom has created us equal without segregation, a feat not achieved by the Church.

One final point,( for Timkins.)
It is a fallacy to believe that religious organisations do not benefit from taxpayers' money.The contribution by taxpayers takes the form of generous tax concessions provided to any organisation professing to be religious.There is no doubt that many such organisations deserve such a reward for their social contribution to our secular society.There is no doubt either that many such organisations are simply exploiting the situation for the propaganda purpose of proselytising.
Tax exempted organisations derive such concessions from the whole spectrum of our society irrespective of race or creed.

Nobby

Nobby,
If religious organisations receive government concessions, then the taxpayer would be subsidising them, but the government also subsidies many different clubs and organisations, that have no religious connections.

However gender would be rather fundamental to most people, and while someone can change whatever religion, club, or organisation they belong to, it becomes rather difficult to change their gender. So the question then becomes should the government be subsidising (with taxpayer’s money) organisations that will exclude people because of their gender.

I would think that governments should not be subsidising organisations that are so fundamentally biased. I have mentioned the Office of Women, (or Office for Women) which is in most states and federally, but there are many others

COL
as I read your post, I think I'm also reading your mental image of 'The Church' and I have to agree that your description of a large beaurocratic, multi tiered top down organization is certainly something for people to run from. I certainly did.

But having said that, one has to be fair, and realize that some of the 'large' churches like the Anglican, began for the dubious reasons of King Henry VIII wanting to divorce his wife. So, with a beginning like that, which is contrary to Scripture anyway, one should not be surprised at some of the outcomes. Same with the Catholics, but different historical beginnings.

I absolutely believe in The Church within 'the church'. The body of Christ is not an organization, it is a living organism of individuals who know Christ. They are found in many denominations, including the RC and Anglican and others. So, I don't have to follow their traditional structures, yet this does not mean I cannot be edified and built up by individuals within those traditions.

NOBBY
Mat 7.15 is always in my mind, and without it we would be the poorer.
It urges us to evaluate claims to prophethood, or Messiahship on scriptural lines, which is what I'm attempting to do.
Your approach seems a bit 'universalist' which is certainly not the message Christ delivered, John 14.6. But your comments are appreciated.
Televangelists ? tell me about it.. so sad (some) Its a mixed bag.
Radio ? Chuck Swindoll is one of the better ones I feel. There are some very rabid rednecks also. We have to take your advice and be discerning.

The article.
I can't really add anything to what I've already said.

As a general rule, not that many women sexually interfere with children (I'm sure it does happen, its still despicable) so I cant see what motivation they would have to have an interest in either role.

The senior pastor of the baptist church I attend had 20+ years of experience before he got the role.

That more women are now graduating from theological colleges, I wouldn't expect to see a significant increase in senior pastoral women for any years because they do not yet have the experience.

"A majority of members in Australian Baptist churches today, and almost all the opinion-makers and gatekeepers, are cultural conservatives who are tacitly opposed to women in lead roles."

This statement is not supported. My own personal experience with many in the leadersip of the baptist union and members of the baptist church would indiciate it is not only unsupported, but also incorrect.

Another point is the fact that roughly 50% of all baptist church members are women. They vote for elders and other leaders of the church as much as the men do. It is not a patriachally controlled establishment.

Perhaps the author should look past her own beliefs on equality and instead evaluate people on the basis of character and ability. (Which is not implying anything other than different people, regardless of gender, have different abilities and character)

Correction...I said the author and her, when I should have said the author and his....
I guess I should pay more attention to gender....

Justice Crennan's appointment is to be celebrated, but her disavowal of feminism is disengenious to say the least. Without the feminist movement of the last 200 years or so, she would have been disbarred from attending university or practicing law. Her ability to choose her own course in life limited to marriage, motherhood or as dependent spinster.
Promotion on merit is an interesting concept. If it occurs (which I doubt) it seems white, middle aged blokes, almost exclusively, are the people who have merit. I suspect in all institutions, including the Baptist Church, promotion actually occurs based on a person who is most like me basis, me being the person or people doing the selecting. Promotion on merit in our society is a laughable concept, and demonstrably does not exist. Lawyers, politicians, religious leaders, businesspeople etc are all clones of one another and many are not particularly bright or effective.
But congratulations to the author of the article who is clearly a thoughtful and fair minded individual who is genuinely gender-blind.

I still find some of your contributions fascinating Boaz, if only in the same way I find fascinating the curling of a lizard's tail after it has been shed, or an orb weaver spider eating her mate.

>>"There is a clear scriptural mandate for women not to 'rule over men'"<<

Err... not to be in any way doubtful of their motives, but were the scriptures written by men, by any chance?

>>"There is no reason I can see why women cannot contribute in many ways, but 'formal teaching of the Church' is not one of them"<<

But surely, Boaz, women make very good teachers. Aren't we talking power structures here, not spiritual guidance? Teaching has little to do with "ruling over men", after all.

>>"The Church has indeed been at the cutting edge of much social change as mentioned in the article, "Amazing Grace" having been written by John Newton, former Slave trader"<<

This one cracked me up. As anyone who reads a little more than the saccharine-soaked "I saw the error of my ways" tales about Newton knows, it wasn't his religious nature that turned him away from slave trading. In fact, he quite happily continued trading slaves from his acceptance of christianity in 1748 through to his leaving the sea in 1755. Not once did he set any free, by the way, as many of the stories claim.

When he left the sea he became a form of customs officer, earning a living from keeping half the contraband he found. He only became a priest ten years later, and eight years after that he co-wrote "Amazing Grace" alongside William Cowper and a handful of others.

The foundation of christianity is, of course, largely based on myth, so I suppose one more won't make much of a difference. But this one did give me a good chuckle, for which much thanks.

Confusion about Biblical status of women occurs because Greek word usage is translated differently. Women are to be submissive (doesn’t mean doormat) to husbands, not all men. Husbands likewise shouldn’t lord it over wives, but love them sacrificially, as Christ loved the church.
Boaz, 1 Cor says that when, not if, women are giving a message in church, they should cover their head - a cultural propriety.
Many Biblical women are given rights and roles way beyond contemporary cultural restrictions. Only God qualifies to set rules for what’s proper, not human conventions, as only He has all knowledge to make proper decrees and assessments.
Nobby, to use the word “Scriptures” is to claim inspiration by God. God, not us, decides what is true and the benchmark of decency. Isn't God by definition the one who is above all, knows all, and is the judge of all?
Speaking of appointment of High Court judges, though we may attempt to appoint whichever real or little tin god we like, it makes no difference whatsoever. God always has been who He is and is not in any way changed or dethroned just because some creature doesn't want to believe Him.
Pericles, the idea that the God of every religion is the same God is the real myth. Ask a Muslim if Allah is the same as the God of Jews or Christians. He would doubtless say “no”. You can’t have it every way. God can’t possibly fit the descriptions of all religions when they’re so contrary.
As to that well-worn claim that Christianity is largely based on myth, have you actually investigated this? I doubt you think Julius Caesar is a myth, although there’s much more evidence to support the life, death and even resurrection of Jesus Christ. Even contemporary secular writers and historians mentioned these events.
Much in the history of the institutional church deserves condemnation. Jesus’ harshest criticism targeted religious leaders, whom He called white-washed sepulchres. Because someone goes to church, or even leads a church, doesn’t mean he’s a real Christian. We have to separate charlatans from the genuine article.