Monday, April 2, 2012

Sydney Anglican Sarie King declares singles are more committed to Christ

Then why do Sydney Anglicans get married?

Sarie King has found a rare ‘gold nugget’ that she wants to share with others. She has found a radically refreshing, emotionally encouraging and spiritually uplifting quote in a book on How God Shapes us Through Relationships by Douglas Webster...
If you wanted to be married today you could be...If you had no criteria, no real guidelines, or no moral standards to speak of...Anybody who doesn't have any standards can get married...Singleness for the right reasons is not a matter of fate but of faithfulness, and we need to see it through the eyes of the Lord, who honours those who honour him with their whole being.

Sarie honours the Christian single who says…

* I know I could go out and get married now if I wanted to, but I will deliberately limit my godly choice to a believer in God’s household…even if it means I may never marry (2Cor 6:14)

* I could experience as much sex as I want right now, but I am determined to commit myself to honour God with my body in purity and godly self control (1Cor 6:20)

* Time is running out, I don’t have to wait for a husband to have children, but I choose to trust in God’s design for marriage and family…even if it means that for me, it may never be (Heb 13:4-5)

* I could easily use all my money to perpetually travel the world, but I want to honour God with my wealth, to be a good steward of God’s good gifts in life and ministry (Prov 3:9, Matt 6:24)

* I could use all my free time and weekends to do what I please, but I want to use the time God gives me to care for others and to serve his people…(Eph 4:12)

These Sydney Anglican women are something else... I'm sure they are aliens who have been beamed down from another galaxy to promote stupidity...or maybe they are just plain stupid and happy to push the twisted fundamentalist agenda developed by Sydney Anglican men... because we all know that Sydney Anglicans refuse to support marriage equality so someone has to sing the praises of singleness... but if singleness is so 'Christ-like' then why do Sydney Anglicans refuse to ordain single men. Hmmm... sick, warped, miserable people!


  1. Of all the sad things coming from the cult that is Jensenism this woman's attempt at justifying the tragic waste of her life and denial of her birthright as a free and equal child of God must surely be one of the saddest. Never have I seen a more poignant example of Stockholm Syndrome - nor a more heart-wrenching one.

    That those responsible for brainwashing this poor woman with such utter garbage all have families themselves is as cruel and sick an example of Pharisaism one will ever find. Truly the Jensens and the men keeping them in power are evil, evil people.

  2. So you mean to say that a single Christian woman who finds satisfaction and contentment in her current status is 'stupid'? That a woman who finds value in singleness rather than thinking she's less valuable because she's unmarried is 'sick'? That somehow, a person who chooses to use her God-given resources generously rather than selfishly is 'twisted'?

    Your reactions to Sarie King's blog reveal a number of very unfortunate things. First of all, I wonder whether you've actually understood her points. She is not valuing marriage above singleness, but rather finding the the value and purpose of both within God's design. Are you suggesting that this is wrong somehow? She is acknowledging that many single people struggle with the fact that they aren't married and she's offering a constructive statement to show that single people are not less valued by God than married people. Also, you apparently have little idea about Sydney Anglicans—I don't know where you get the notion that they do not ordain single men. Of course they do! They ordain single men, single women, married men, and married women. So you are either coming at the issue from serious misinformation and caricature, or you are deliberately twisting facts. Which is it?

    Furthermore, the above commenter's caricature of Sydney Anglicans as 'the cult that is Jensenism' reveals little familiarity with the history and development of the diocese. If the commenter does have any actual knowledge of Sydney, then they must be maliciously twisting things.

    And finally, the libellous rhetoric that the two of you use is offensive, demeaning, slanderous, and childish. If you were on the moral pedestal here and honestly believed that Sarie King's post revealed a sorry character, what makes you think that putting the boot into her is going to help her? Do you honestly believe that your responses are pastorally responsible or in any way constructive? Do you really believe that your response shows any sign of basic human kindness? You have the temerity to claim moral high ground and then engage in character assassination while spewing forth rhetorical diarrhoea? And you sit there pointing the finger at others and calling them sick, twisted, warped, miserable, and evil!

  3. Dear withmeagrepowers,
    The Sydney diocese is well known for segregating men and women and placing a heavy emphasis on gender.The complementarian approach embraced by the diocese limits the roles of individuals, particularly women, when placing enormous value on complementarianism. People don't have to be a Sydney Anglican, nor do women have to be submissive, to value their spouse or care for, and love their children. Sydney Anglicans place a so much emphasis on 'headship and submission' and this can be interpreted as 'contolling'. When an organisation solely defines and rewards womanhood for its subservience and reproductive abilities, then it reduces an individual to a gender stereotype,and isolates those who don't conform to the norm. Male'headship' determines the worth of a woman. If your diocese really valued all women, then they would be seen as individuals, all equipped with different gifts and talents, that promote the spiritual growth in both men and women. Surely a woman like Sarie would have something to offer men, if she was allowed to preach before them? Instead her talents are limited to 'equipping' women in the art remaining subservient? Perhaps if some women were of equal status and in charge of a parishes, then the church climate that some singles find themselves in, may be more inviting. There has been so much emphasis placed on complementarianism by significant personnel within the diocese, who have devoted a lifetime to telling women how to behave and remain submissive (even on Mother's day), that many single and married women feel that there is no place for them as an Anglican in Sydney. As a Moore College lecturer, do you ever stop and think why there is a need for something like 'Priscilla and Aquila' at Moore College? Aren't Moore College students just a group of individuals in an adult learning context? Why should intelligent woman theologians be refused the right to have their own parish? As for Sarie, I cannot understand why you feel that you need to defend her. She is being employed to help 'equip' women in the role of subservience. She is an important Sydney diocese 'cog in the wheel' maintaining gender stereotypes . If women like Sarie helped promote equality within the diocese, then she wouldn't have to feel sorry for the single, childless women because they would be admired for their Godly achievements. Now you may say that all of this is an overgeneralisation but I'm afraid that this is how the Sydney diocese presents to the world. It has a reputation for being ruthless when dealing with its intelligent, dedicated women who saw it as their right to be ordained, and it is perceived as equally ruthless in its handling of SSA Christians. Where is your archbishop at present?

  4. At last, something a little more level-headed! And yet, I don't think I'm in a position to engage with you so long as you accuse Sydney of oppressing women while your offensive and 'woman-bashing' rant against Sydney woman, Sarie King, remains on your blog. The hypocrisy is palpable. You owe her a public and unqualified apology in a new blog post, stating your real name as well. That is the only decent and respectful course of action you can take here. Perhaps then we can have a dignified conversation between respectful human beings. If not, your cowardice will be evident to all.

    Your call.

  5. There is no call. Sarie is writing for Sydney Anglicans on their website. Sydney Anglicans are in the business of recruiting 10% of the population here in Sydney and beyond. Many people like myself believe that however you dress up Sydney Anglican complementarianism,it is still sexism. The diocese believes in an apartheid approach to gender management. Sarie is an employee, writing publicly for this huge organisation,so of course her writing deserves to be scrutinised.Her article was linked to the satirical piece, so everyone could read what she wrote. You found my writing offensive and yet it was her writing that evoked my response. To many it is offensive when women promote subservience in other women, particularly when an imbalance in a relationship can contribute to abuse. Now my blog is not about being paid to convert people to orthodoxy where sexism and homophobia are intentionally or unintentionally promoted, so I have no need to identify myself.

  6. So it's fine for you to woman-bash in this way, then?

    Your malice, cowardice, and hypocrisy is evident to all.

  7. FYI...Factual correction...Sarie King is actually not an employee of the Diocese, she works in the public sector. She wrote that piece on her own personal blog & Syd. Ang's had permission to re-post.

  8. Thank you for the clarification. She still promotes inequality in a church that is trying to rectify the modelling of social injustice.

  9. The zeal with which you put words in the mouths of your critics and throw about terms like "libellous" says everything there is to know about the real nature of your exegetical skills, Mr. Athas. As does your used-car salesman's freedom with the truth - in proudly boasting the distinctly unAnglican sect currently controlling Anglicanism in the diocese of Sydney ordains women you most cleverly fail to mention that you're not talking about ordination to the Priesthood - which I'm quite sure that you're aware is what springs to mind when the vast majority of the communion discuss ordination.

    Sly, Mr. Athas, very sly indeed. And exactly the kind of behavior those of us elsewhere in the Anglican Church come to expect from cult apologists such as yourself. When Jensenism has run its inevitable course you can be sure of finding a warm welcome in Scientology - the parallel between their approach to dissent and your own is remarkable.

  10. You're welcome to your opinion, Troll. I really don't see anything sly going on here. Ordination is ordination, deacons included. Are you suggesting the diaconate is of less value than the presbyterate? In any case, there's nothing to hide in this matter. It was not my intention to mislead on anything here, so if you think I did, my apologies. But that certainly wasn't my intention.

    Calamity Jane, on the other hand, is hiding behind cowardice, malice and a barrage of insults, still refusing to apologise for using offensive labels or reveal 'her' own identity. Care to reveal yours to back up your views with a little substance?

    Oh and thanks for the Scientology recommendation. I'll store it away, since I guess your Anglican church would not welcome me through its doors. I probably wouldn't be accepted with all their equality, tolerance, and perfection, and stuff.

    But then again, maybe I'll just stick to a loving church. I know a few here in Sydney.

  11. No, my little Jensenite - I didn't expect you'd see anything sly in your response: pretty normal stuff by the standards of the murk in which you frolic, wasn't it? Nor was I suggesting anything of the sort you imply concerning a hierarchy of values in the three-fold order of ministry - as once again I'm certain you well knew. Why is it you Sydney apologists just can't help yourselves when it comes to misrepresenting those in disagreement with you?

    Incidentally, I especially loved your depiction of me as either knowing nothing of the world of Jensenism, or else "maliciously twisting things". Has it really never occurred to that others might simply arrive at their opinion of your cult through observing its actions? By your "fruit", as it were? Because from where I sit your diocese is most famous for nepotism (and an embarrassing defence thereof), the appalling loss of $160 million of your parishioners' assets (and the continued cover-up of how that was able to occur), mysogny to the point where you'd rather embrace a heretical and highly specious theory of the Trinity than take Galatians 3:28 at face value, a failed evangelism campaign which channelled vast amounts of money into a private company in which your Archbishop's family hold shares, and a determination to spread division and disunity around the globe. So on the basis of that (and more: how can I not also mention a certain curate with a penchant for blackmnail?) comes this outsider's opinion. One which you've most determinedly lived up to here.

    Nor, Mr. Athos, do you appear capable of conceiving that not all churches are like as the "loving few here" you claim to know, and with which you appear comfortable. (Try being born gay, or being a female called by God to the priesthood, and we'll see if you still find them so loving.) Contrary to your by now very familiar fundamentalist rhetoric, you would indeed be welcome in my parish any time. Your bigotry, sexism, dishonesty and general nastiness we would, however, prefer you leave at the door. And since they seem such an essential part of your faith, it's probably a good thing you've taken the tip regarding Scientology to heart.

  12. The name is Athas. George Athas. What's yours?

    And while we're at it, what's the wonderful diocese you're in? Perhaps we could look up to it here in the infernal pit of Sydney?

    In the meantime, continue with the stream of insults all you like. The apology owed to Sarie King still remains forthcoming. And if you cannot see that you and Calamity Jane owe her an apology, then there's no use engaging with you because you can't be trusted to view reality without some serious skewing, or without a modicum of humility or respect. Apologise and we might have a conversation.

  13. Troll. Father Christian. Live with it.

    Sarie King's words were deeply, profoundly, disturbingly and heart-breakingly sad. Those responsible for twisting the Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ into something so controlling and manipulative as to cause such sorrow are guilty of the profoundest evil. And you want me to apologize for speaking out against such evil?

    No, Mr. Athas, that's not going to happen. Ever. And if refusing to apologize for standing up against the dark filth of Pharisaic injustice means never having a conversation with you then... why gee, Mr. Athos, I guess that's just another beautiful online relationship that's never going to happen.

    So now tell us, please, where in the above exchange do you think you have displayed any of the respect or humility you so vociferously demand from others? Where have you just once responded without misrepresenting your critics' words? When it comes to credibility, Mr. Athas, you Jensenists are all the same.

  14. The diaconate is an order for great theologians. I have been a deacon for years, and my reputation as a blackmailer ensures I shall remain one. I would advise Mr Athas to issue legal threats and report Dr Troll to his bishop. We loving Jensenites will do anything to silence our critics.

  15. Sweeping generalisations, name-calling, hiding, and still no apology.

  16. Exactly, Mr. George Athas, but as I've already said, that's exactly what Christians have come to expect from your cult's devotees. So would you like us to all keep waiting for an answer to my request for an example of your indubitably superior respect and humility as displayed above? Or would you rather we just moved on and accepted it as a matter of faith - since Jensenists never lie, do they Mr. George Athas?

    BTW, I see you currently lecture in Old Testament studies at Moore College. I once corresponded with a highly esteemed predecessor of yours, who had been summarily (and brutally) dismissed from his post by your Cult Leaders for "heresy". He subsequently put me in touch with another three former lecturers at your beloved institution whose appointments had also been discontinued for similar reasons. So please explain to us this, my dear Deacon George Athas: given your diocese is allegedly the apex of all that is Biblical in Anglicanism's bold new future, why do you keep losing teaching theologians in such an unseemly manner? Tell us, we pray, that it couldn't possibly have anything to do with academic integrity and your cult's precepts being inherently opposed. Could it now?

  17. The archbishop and I share something in common...we are both fundamentalists in our attitudes to social justice issues. He fundamentally believes and publicly states that women should not be ordained into the Priesthood, and and I fundamentally believe in social equality in secular and church life. From my point of view, I found Sarie's article extremely offensive because it sang the praises of single Sydney Anglican women finding subservience in the church, when it could not be found in the home. These single Sydney Anglican women who dedicate their lives to the church are not given equal opportunities in the vocation of their choice. Of course it is their choice and their right to remain subservient to male headship. It is however my right to criticise what I perceive as injustice, especially when it is publicised on a mainstream church website. It is also my right to call women stupid when they allow men to determine what they can and cannot do... especially when men are unsure of what Complementarianism actually looks like... "And it’s not unusual for complementarians to see their particular combination of answers to the two questions as the One True Complementarianism, and to get a bit aggro about other positions for either being too close to misogyny or too close to egalitarianism. There is, at this point in time, and I think it will be with us for some time to come, a search for the One True Complementarianism taught by the Bible."
    If I were a Complementarian then I would willingly submit to tou male headship and apologise to Sarie because you said so but I'm not and it is my opinion that it is a waste of time debating with an orthodox Sydney Anglican so I say let's let God decide?

  18. Religion is disproportionately gay in its adherents and even more so in its clergy. Which means it's an intrinsically marginal and pitiful group to belong to for normal males. Which merely increases the perception that it's a group for old ladies of both sexes to mince around in chasubles and pretend to hear voices from the beyond based on Bronze Age texts.
    Enjoy the slide into further irrelevance.

  19. Brad my son - how delightful to find you joining the party here!

  20. Calamity Jane, I'm not questioning your right to an opinion or critique. I'll defend you on that count. Stirring the pot is just fine with me, especially when it's done constructively. The Reformation is a great example of that. Your opinions of Sydney Anglicanism, Moore College, or Complementarianism are fine—I disagree with them, but I have no trouble with you sharing your views. I hope you'll share a reciprocal sentiment with me.

    But where you overstepped the mark was when your critique was mixed with a big dose of personal vitriol against a particular individual, Sarie King. That was in no way constructive. To bend the genders momentarily for a turn of phrase, you played the man, not the ball. And for that you should apologise to her. I'm not trying to make you submit to me, or play a game of one-upmanship. This isn't about scoring point for me. I'm simply pointing out what seems to me an offence on your part against someone else. You sound like someone who has some faith in the Lord Jesus, and on that basis I urge you to put things right. If you find me an easy target for your criticisms in response, that's fine. Go ahead with that. But you still need to apologise to Sarie King. What makes the situation even worse is hiding your identity behind an online persona. It speaks to an unwillingness to deal with matters and a desire to hide in shadows. If it's not simply cowardice, then I wonder what it is motivating you to remain so hidden. This kind of sly shadow boxing is neither becoming, nor constructive.

    That's about it from me on this front. God bless, Calamity Jane. The Lord can use both you and me, imperfect beings that we are, for his good purposes, and I pray that he does so. He's good at doing that.

  21. Before I leave for the dole queue, I support George's demand for an apology. Like a homosexual, Sarie could get as much SEX as she wants. But God's Rules forbid single women and gays to indulge in carnal knowledge. Like George, I am married and have sex constantly. But it's our role to tell single women and gays they can't have physical pleasure against biblical regulations. Jensenism is full of rules and laws. Just because Sarie obeys the Jensens you think you can poke fun at her. You forget - she is a fundamentalist, not a Christian. Apologise immediately or face the legal consequenses. Where's my lawyer?

  22. Luke 10:38-42

    New International Version (NIV)

    At the Home of Martha and Mary

    38 As Jesus and his disciples were on their way, he came to a village where a woman named Martha opened her home to him. 39 She had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet listening to what he said. 40 But Martha was distracted by all the preparations that had to be made. She came to him and asked, “Lord, don’t you care that my sister has left me to do the work by myself? Tell her to help me!”

    41 “Martha, Martha,” the Lord answered, “you are worried and upset about many things, 42 but few things are needed—or indeed only one.[a] Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her.”
    Dear George
    Sarie and the Sydney Anglican advisory group remind me so much of Martha and Martha is entitled to conform to the patriarchal standards of the time but all I can say is thank God for Jesus because without him Mary would have missed out on being treated as someone who was allowed access to spiritual knowledge without restriction. I wonder if Jesus will materialise for those exceptional young women in the Sydney Diocese who thirst for more than subordination? Who says sorry to these women who are forced to leave the diocese because they desire the same rights and opportunities as men. Noone is saying to Sarie that she has to give up her Complementarian principles but women seeking a thirst for equality like Mary are being made to behave like Martha. Why doesn't Sarie post her own protest on my blog? If being a Complementarian means you ask a man to do it for you then Sarie I'm sorry for hurting your feelings...and George I'm not being difficult just a fundamentalist... but you're OK for a Sydney Anglican! I really don't think that you realise the total lack of trust people have in your diocese. My friends and I didn't start off bitter and twisted about the Diocese.We dared like many others to express a different viewpoint at times and paid dearly. Anyway my friend, I no doubt will differ with you on many things. Now in absolutely no way am I being rude to you or criticising you... but I found your tone with me was pretty fatherly and I think you might be a little young to be my father. If you are my friend then I am your equal. You know it shouldn't matter of whether I believe in Jesus not, I reckon a real Christians would open their hearts and minds to everyone, solid in their belief in Jesus Christ. Now enough of my preaching because I sound like your mother! George enjoy your life and your orthodoxy. Bye now.

  23. 17, 2012 at 4:18 AM

    After some thought, and against the advice of Father Christian, I have decided to add my voice to this "discussion".

    The real tragedy here is not traditionalism or complementarianism or whatever - the real tragedy is that the ethos and views of a former era are equated with the religion of Christianity.

    There is another, cynical point to be made. Isn't it interesting that the form of ordination traditionally reserved for men just happens to come with a house and a stipend? Let me be blunt: the real consequences of this view are that a man can, in effect, "get a job" as a Christian.

    When I first encountered Christianity many years ago, I was startled to learn that I could not, as a Christian, support the equality of the sexes. As a result, I left the church and, for many years, was an apostate.

    The views expressed here by Sydney Anglican women remind me, all too clearly, of what I was exposed to.

    One final comment. Nowhere in the canonical gospels does Jesus ever mention the "place" of women in the kingdom.

    He just doesn't, and that's all there is to it.

    Jane Smith (Pretoria, South Africa)

  24. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.