This is a complicated issue for many of us who worry about the theological direction of the Episcopal Church in the USA (ECUSA). For one thing, I hate to see conservatives leave over women’s ordination. What that means, among other things, is that they are abandoning many dedicated women clergy who are themselves conservative on the other two issues: biblical authority and homosexuality. But we do have to be clear that it is not enough to say that the departing conservatives are simply setting up “a separate denomination.” In this case they are aligning themselves with the growing majority of Anglican churches around the world–an alignment that liberal Episcopalians are choosing to abandon by their recent actions.
This Fuller alum is hanging in there, Dr. Mouw.
I could not agree more with Richard Mouw about this. Proclaiming the same good news of Jesus Christ that inspired the writing of the Church’s historic scriptures by – here and now – word and, even more importantly, example of transformed lives that attract others to unite with the ONE holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, to those who do not yet “get it” is SO MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than disagreements over changing liturgical styles, English language translations of Hebrew and Greek bible texts, the Apostle Paul’s ideas about the proper gender of congregational leadership. New denominationalism is not only counter-productive, but surely heart-breaking to the Living Lord who died for all of us.
The ironic thing is that in the west at least, it has been new denominations, set free from old battles, that have driven individual transformation by actually planting churches and reaching neighbors. The Methodist Church, which had so much to do with evangelizing America in the 19th century, was a “new denomination, that came into being after an Anglican split. The Evangelical Free Church came out of Scandinavian Lutheran state churches. I continue to pray and have good will toward those who are called to stay within TEC, but speaking for myself, I am pretty sure I am just as much a part of the “ONE holy, catholic, and apostolic church” on the outside as I was on the inside.
In general of course we have to agree with what he says: which is that it really is a shame that so many conservatives feel hounded out of TEC. And that it is going to mean that the remaining conservatives will be able to offer that much less creedal/conservative ballast against the tendency of the TEC balloon to shoot into the wild blue yonder. It is a terrible shame, and yes there is now going to be that much less ballast. What creedal Christian could say otherwise? And certainly we must agree with the tone of his brief piece, which is one of love and charity towards both those conservatives who stay and those who go.
That said, I’d question a few things. I seriously question his claim that “conservatives are leav[ing] over women’s ordination.” Surely that’s a serious misapprehension. First off many conservatives who are leaving support WO. Second, for those who oppose it, remember that they lived with it for 30 years, so the issue can’t be WO per se, but (to the extend that WO is a factor at all in their departure) the issues are a woman PRIMATE (and an aggressive one at that) and the clear recent move toward rescinding the promise made in the 70s that people opposed to WO would always have their conscience respected (i.e. they wouldn’t be forced to have women priests).
So that’s one thing.
The other thing I question — and here I know I am about to say something very controversial, but I feel it must be said — is his claim that there are “many dedicated women clergy who are themselves conservative on the other two issues: biblical authority and homosexuality.” Many? Really? I admit to not knowing one. Every women priest I know in TEC approves of KJS, with possibly one exception. No doubt there are SOME female priests who are opposed to KJS and who deeply support traditional apostolic teaching, but I would guess that the number is less than 10% of them.
Surely it is not hard to see why? Their very existence was created by arguments about God Doing A New Thing and appeals to the modern age’s views about gender and “discrimination” and “bigotry”. If your whole career has been made possible by overturning 2000 years of tradition, and by arguments of very dubious theological value, then surely we should expect that this will attract to it people with a low estimation of tradition and a low respect for well considered theological arguments, over and against compassion for The Other and persons the culture says are victims of gender discrimination?
I want to suggest something which (again) will doubtless be received as shocking, but has anyone done a breakdown of how women bishops and women priests vote at the last 3-4 GC’s — and compare that with men? For example, what does a gender breakdown look like for the support of VGR at GC 2003? Both amongst the bishops, priests, and laity?
I is only partly a matter of being driven out. I suspect that it is increasingly likely that like is calling to like, that many will run toward ACNA because it has something they truly believe in. In short, I think motivation has shifted and it is possible that momentum has shifted in some significant way. This gives ACNA a genuiine power, that it stands FOR something, not AGAINST something. Larry
Jon,
I know several priests who happen to be female and are biblically orthodox and hold traditional morality.
One if the problems for both Americans is our lack of [url=http://deaconslant.blogspot.com/2008/12/waiting.html]patience[/url].
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Whatever one may think that continual “splitting” in Christianity achieves, it also proves a point of argument that Satan cherishes, which is that group self-importance and self-satisfaction is what motivates new Church sects far more than carrying on Jesus’ mission of self-emptying love for the whole world.
Remember that this “splitting” differs from the examples cited above. In the case of the Anglican Church in North America, it is a joining with the larger body of Anglican bodies, worldwide. If the ACNA were to be only another splinter group, I would share the author’s concern.
People leaving TEc is about much more than just women’s ordination. It is about the Authority of the Holy Bible, and the divinity of our Lord, Jesus Christ.
In so far as the debate of women’s ordination, I don’t think that you can call that an invention or dogma of St. Paul. If I remeber correctly, Jesus Himslef appointed only males to be His disciples. As the Church is the living Body of Christ on Earth, where do we get ANY authority to change the actions of Christ? We don’t. Therefore we have no authority to think that women can be validly ordained. It is not us saying it, It is God in the form of His Only Begotten Son. If you want to buck that authority, go ahead, but I think I will follow my Lord.
Hi Phil. Would you say that MOST of the women priests you know are biblically orthodox? That really does surprise me, I have to admit. On the other hand, you live in Plano, TX… right? So perhaps that explains it.
You mention several that you know… the key question is not the number a particular person knows but the percentage. When a writer posting a piece in the Washington Post claims as a matter of fact that there are “many” people of a certain subset, it means or should mean that he is claiming a high percentage. Otherwise the word “many” is pointless. After all there are many Klansmen in America (thousands), many hard core smokers who are perfectly healthy (thousands), etc. That doesn’t mean that the typical American is a Klansman or that the typical 2+ pack a day smoker is healthy.
I don’t want to make too much of a big deal about this. I was just correcting what I regarded as two significant errors of fact. (1) That conservatives are leaving because women can be ordained as priests in TEC and (2) That most women priests are biblically orthodox. This was the impression that the fellow gave in his piece and it strikes me on both counts as errors — errors crucial to the two points he was trying to make.
Another note to Phil Snyder….
I liked your piece on patience. Thanks.
By the way, I was pleased to see in your profile that you are a big fan of the sci-fi novel THE MOTE IN GOD’S EYE and (on a lighter note) that you are a big fan of Monty Python.
Speaking of Monty Python, I can’t resist the urge to post this very relevant bit from THE LIFE OF BRIAN:
==========================
JUDITH:
I do feel, Reg, that any Anti-Imperialist group like ours must reflect such a divergence of interests within its power-base.
REG:
Agreed. Francis?
FRANCIS:
Yeah. I think Judith’s point of view is very valid, Reg, provided the Movement never forgets that it is the inalienable right of every man–
STAN:
Or woman.
FRANCIS:
Or woman… to rid himself–
STAN:
Or herself.
FRANCIS:
Or herself.
REG:
Agreed.
FRANCIS:
Thank you, brother.
STAN:
Or sister.
FRANCIS:
Or sister. Where was I?
REG:
I think you’d finished.
FRANCIS:
Oh. Right.
REG:
Furthermore, it is the birthright of every man–
STAN:
Or woman.
REG:
Why don’t you shut up about women, Stan. You’re putting us off.
STAN:
Women have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg.
FRANCIS:
Why are you always on about women, Stan?
STAN:
I want to be one.
REG:
What?
STAN:
I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me ‘Loretta’.
REG:
What?!
LORETTA:
It’s my right as a man.
JUDITH:
Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
LORETTA:
I want to have babies.
REG:
You want to have babies?!
LORETTA:
It’s every man’s right to have babies if he wants them.
REG:
But… you can’t have babies.
LORETTA:
Don’t you oppress me.
REG:
I’m not oppressing you, Stan. You haven’t got a womb! Where’s the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!
LORETTA:
[crying]
JUDITH:
Here! I– I’ve got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can’t actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody’s fault, not even the Romans’, but that he can have the right to have babies.
FRANCIS:
Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.
REG:
What’s the point?
FRANCIS:
What?
REG:
What’s the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can’t have babies?!
FRANCIS:
It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
REG:
Symbolic of his struggle against reality.
I’m with you, Jon.
9, if you are going to make that argument then, as the apostles were Jewish then only Jewish males should be successors to the apostles.
This is a fascinating piece by Dr Mouw. Fuller’s network of campuses extends up and down the Pacific coast. I am wondering whom he was addressing when Dr Mouw wrote this. Is he reaching out to the new province offering space for them at Fuller by recognizing that they are not so much a new denomination but a new affiliation within the Anglican Communion? Or is he showing some support for conservatives who remain in the dioceses of LA or San Diego? Or is he speaking to Fuller reminding the Fuller Community of its roots as a unifying entity (a la Marsden’s Reforming Fundamentalism)? Still wondering and appreciative of Dr Mouw’s words, being like #1, an alum of Fuller.
This is sooooooo tempting, but I will resist. All I can say is, it is disheartening to see the same tired and exploded arguments (as in #13) repeated over and over again. Reminds me of the recent shellfish argument redux from that noted biblical scholar, Jack Black, in response to Proposition 8.
I might add that, whatever one thinks of evangelicals (does that include Richard John Neuhaus, for example?), the Episcopal Church doesn’t need them for the simple reason that the Episcopal Church is in the process of vanishing, or at least becoming utterly irrelevant (as opposed to being only somewhat irrelevant now). The only reason to stay in TEC now is either tending a flock that is already there and can’t or won’t leave, or the Church Pension Fund or other legal or technical issues (and I don’t mean to suggest these are not important).
Put another way, I cannot imagine any clergyman who is committed to the gospel and at the start of his career committing himself to TEC. It is a corporate entity that is going the way of Lehman Brothers.
Regarding women as followers of Jesus in His days on earth and evangelization…the following passage is commonly forgotten, imho:
Luke 8:1-3
1 After this, Jesus traveled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The Twelve were with him, 2 and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; 3 Joanna the wife of Cuza, the manager of Herod’s household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means.
#16, “I’d … say,” Open up your mind and imagine. Feel free to email me off list. I am relatively new to the priesthood, not beholden to TEC’s pension, a Bible thumping Jesus loving evangelical, who belives faith in Jesus transforms lives and communities, and I am planting a TEC church. Crazy? Sure is. Why? Why would a highly educated and competent and conservative cleric with other options do such a ridiculous thing? God told me to. Imagine a big God.
Re: #17. See #15. Jesus could have had a thousand women followers attested in the New Testament, and it would make no difference whatsoever to the argument against women priests.
Br Michael, I have a very open mind (of course I’d say that). But I’m 54, the child of Episcopal clergy, an active Episcopalian all of my life, and I simply see no future for the institution of TEC. Anglicanism itself is an increasingly dubious proposition, but I continue to hope.
So God bless you and may He shower grace on your endeavours. He can surely do great things, yea, even in TEC. But you’ll forgive me if I say that I don’t think I’m the one who needs to open his mind. In any case, you’re welcome to contact me off-list at idrathernotsay123@hotmail.com or through my blog (now resuming after having been a bit moribund of late).
“All I can say is, it is disheartening to see the same tired and exploded arguments (as in #13) repeated over and over again.” — what exploded arguments? That women, against all tradition were allowed, at least in the biblical account, to call Him “Rabbi”? That women were given the first apostolic commandment “Go and tell my brothers . . .”? That Paul acknowledges females who helped lead and guide the early Church? That the archeological record in the catacombs depicts women celebrating the Eucharist? That the “tradition of a male only clergy” seems to have coincided with the decision of Constantine to make Christianity the state religion? That women were created in His image?
While I can understand and agree to disagree with my brothers and sisters regarding women bishops, the arguments are in no way tired nor exploded. If you want to take issue with KJS and the Episcopal church, take issue with the theological musings or failed pastoring of the individuals who get the pulpit and fail miserably. But please do not dismiss all those who labor faithfully, male or female, where they are called. Those that remain may be living simply in an Isaiah 6 existence watching the stumps being burned again, but trusting that His holy seed in in the stump.
As to your claims, “I’d rather not say,” that no clergyman (woman) committed to the Gospel could begin a career in the Episcopal church, check the recent history of both Nashota and Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry. While some have left, others have stayed. They go where He plants them, trusting that His Word never returns unfulfilled.
Christ’s Peace,
20, wrong Michael.
Sigh. OK, I’ll give this a try.
God did not make man Greek and Jew.
God did not make man slave and free.
God did make man male and female.
Sex (or gender if you prefer) in the bible is rooted in the order of creation. Ethnicity and labor/property relations is not. Despite Galatians, St Paul himself treats these three as distinct issues rooted in completely different theological contexts. This is, pardon me, not the theological equivalent of rocket science, yet lazy thinkers continue to trot out the “he honored women, so they can be clergy” argument. It is of the same order of silliness as the shellfish argument, and for many of the same reasons.
I’m really not here to strike up a whole new rant about WO–I’ve done that plenty, here and elsewhere–so I’ll not respond further, except to note (ahem, elves) that the issue was raised in the post itself.
As for TEC, well, technically I’m still a member, so you can relax. I meant it when I said that I did not dismiss concerns about congregations, pensions or property as trivial. I have family who are comfortably retired thanks the the Church Pension Fund, about the only well-run thing still connected to TEC. But would I advise a young man with a dawning interest in Christianity and an inkling of an idea he might go to seminary to invest in TEC? No. Would you?
Henry,
Would you grant the possibility that at least some of us leaving the Episcopal Church weren’t driven by “self-importance” and “arrogance?”
#20, a simple matter of language and logic: you said you could not imagine a state of being and I offered you tangible evidence of the existance of that which you could not imagine. As to the open-ness of my mind, that is another thread. Now, if you wish to refute my status with respect to the criteria you listed (parish that can’t or won’t leave; pension issues; technical / legal issues; or implied questions of othrodoxy) as a means of demonstrating your position, then fire away; I’ll happily respond, on or off list; else, I stand doing exactly what you cannot imagine.
Michael+, I stand corrected. You offer evidence, and I do indeed accept it. So I guess I can imagine it. (This is beginning to sound like the ontological argument.) It takes an effort, though, because I think my evidence of decay is considerably stronger and more empirically based than your evidence of renewal, hence my wonderment at why any clergy, evangelical or otherwise, would commit themselves to TEC.
#4 Jon says:
Jon, I don’t want to drag this thread into yet another round of the endless debate on WO — and risk thereby Elven ire — but I would like to suggest to you, as mildly as I can, that there exists the possibility that someone can disagree with you without that disagreement being a priori evidence that they have “a low respect for well considered theological arguments.” Maybe, just maybe, a reasonable person can reasonably have a different opinion than yours about what constitutes a “well considered” theological argument.
IRNS,
I’ll bet that many people could not imagine a career as a Prophet in Israel or Judah before (or after for that matter) the Exile. There was nothing but idle idol worship and the people were not interested in God – except for what He could do for them. Much like TEC today.
While I do am not paid for my services in TEC, I still was ordained after 2003 – knowing that I was being asked to serve a church in trouble and to not be “popular” among those in power within the larger church. But I am called where I am called. I am given the work to do.
Jon – it is funny that you brought up Monty Python’s Life of Brian. On one of the XM Comedy stations, the radio version of that movie was playing and I heard the Loretta bit on the way in to work this morning.
As to your question on the percentage of orthodox women priests, I don’t know. It is not my task to pass on the orthodoxy of priests (male or female) in the diocese. My point is that there are theologically orthodox priest who happen to have two “X” chromosones. As to the percentage of orthodox female priests compared with orthodox male priests, I suspect is it similar. Gender is not a good predicter of theological orthodoxy.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Catacombic depictions of women celebrating the eucharist and the invention of the male priesthood in the 4th century- where is Prof. Tighe when you need him?
Welcome back, Prof. IRNS. The right-hand link to your blog doesn’t work. Can you link to it here?
I envy evangelicals- every day is completely new.
Phil Snyder, you see Elijah and 5000 who have not bent the knee to Baal. I see Sodom with only ten or twelve righteous men left.
phil swain, the new address is
http://idrathernotsay123.wordpress.com/
One reason I took a long hiatus was because the continued recrudescence of catacombs, etc., was just too depressing, the tendency to manufacture evidence just too blinding, and the fantastical ability to miss the obvious just too painful. I needed some time in the wilderness. Remember, you can always decamp there if you need to let loose about . . . oh, you know.
Re: #29,
and “That the archeological record in the catacombs depicts women celebrating the Eucharist?,” see:
http://trushare.com/71APR01/AP01HIDD.htm
As for “That the “tradition of a male only clergy†seems to have coincided with the decision of Constantine to make Christianity the state religion?,” that demonstrates such ignorance of Church History as to corroborate the concluding paragraph of my friend John Hunwicke’s article in the October 2008 issue of Touchstone, here:
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=21-08-022-f
“We are clearly in a new age of rich mythopoeia, worthy to compete with the most imaginative that the medieval cultus of the saints could offer. The fertile need of modern feminism to provide justification and aetiology for its novel dogmas has surpassed the inventiveness even of the hagiographers whose trade it was to promote pilgrimages, shrines, and relics. What a jocose lady Clio must be.”
Sigh…. Ross, ross, ross. Of course it is possibile for a person to disagree with me without me concluding a priori that they must have a low respect for well considered theological arguments. Of course. Long long sigh.
I can give you scads of examples. I’ll choose just one, but if you need more I’ll give you many more. The current pope and I agree on a number of things, but disagree on several things as well. Not surprising: he’s a Roman Catholic, I’m an Anglican by way of Cranmer and Luther. Because we disagree on some things I do not conclude he has a low respect for well considered theological arguments.
It is so very tiring to hear this sort of thing from reappraisers — over and over and over. We say that we want some boundaries on some doctrinal issues, but with still a big ballpark for disagreement on many things: KJS claims that we demand total uniform agreement on every detail of every conceivable theological question (see her recent NPR interview). I question the actual “arguments” used to persude people in the 1970s regarding WO and again at GC 2003 for VGR — and I am told that obviously if any one disagrees me I think they are necessarily an idiot.
This kind of thing is dishonest. I hope at some point you will stop it, Ross. You can’t stop KJS from doing it but you can stop doing it yourself.
Incidentally, at no point in this thread have I myself stated that WO is necessarily wrong. I haven’t myself weighed in on it one way or the other.
What I have done is sharply criticized the PROCESS, the actual historical process by which WO and later gay ordination came to be approved. While there might conceivably be sound arguments for either, the event of approving them was NOT as a historical fact the result of sustained deep theological corporate discernment, but rather bowing to the cultural winds that blew, including the virtually unstoppable winds of “diversity” and “inclusion” and “opposition to bigotry” and “social justice for victims of gender oppression.”
I thank God that Fuller Seminary has started an Anglican Studies track. May it flourish! But this very brief comment by President Mouw does seem quite out of touch with the current, harsh reality in TEC. That is, I agree with Jon (see his #10) that there are at least two quite misleading statements found in this two paragraph summary comment by Dr. Mouw. First, the issue of WO is only tangentially related to our current crisis, and the claim that there are “many” orthodox women clergy in TEC is wildly optimistic. I’ve known a handful of glorious exceptions, but the general rule is all too clear: i.e., the female clergy are on the whole FAR more liberal than their male counterparts. And most of the few orthodox female priests that ever were in TEC have now departed.
Let me list a few choice examples. There’s Canon +Mary Hays, Bishop Duncan’s marvelous staff officer in Pittsburgh, who just left with the diocese in October. There’s +Allison Barfoot, formerly of northern VA, who is now ++Henry Orombi’s Assistant for International Affairs in Kampala. There’s +Victoria Heard, the former missioner for church planting in the Diocese of VA who moved to Dallas and is still in TEC (Phil would know her, I’m sure). There’s the blogging Twin Cities priest in MN who goes by the screen name Anglicat. And there are others, to be sure.
I think Bishop Geralyn Wolf of Rhode Island should at least get honorable mention as someone who is fundamentally orthodox and a “Windsor Bishop.” But not least, I can’t help but highlight my dear friend, +Ruth Urban, in Brandon/Jackson MS, who is a priest in the Kenyan Convocation (Diocese of Thika), at least she will be for the next few days. But on Saturday, Ruth (who is the godmother to my two children and my wife’s spiritual director) will be consecrated a bishop in a splinter group known as All Nations Anglican Church, with its headquarters in Amarillo, Texas. Its founder is a brother to the Bishop of Thika in Kenya. Ruth has long been a leader (regional warden in fact) in the evangelical healing Order of St. Luke within TEC.
But the orthodox Anglican women priests I know all tend to joke about what a rare breed they are, since virtually all their female colleagues are not only more liberal than they are, these colleagues are generally MUCH more liberal than they themselves are.
I support WO myself, but I’d be the first to agree that IN PRACTICE, the ordination of women has been a disaster for TEC. Just a disaster. And that’s because it has tilted the denomination in a much more liberal direction. Granted, the denomination was already in deep, deep trouble; but it greatly aggravated our problem with rampant heresy and the widespread acceptance of the false gospel of theological relativism and its corollary, moral relativism.
I’m actually surprised that someone as generally well-informed as Dr. Richard Mouw would make the kind of off-base comment he did. After all, Fuller is located in Pasadena, and all you have to do to see what’s wrong with TEC is look at big All Saints, Pasadena, where Integrity’s president, Susan Russell+, is on staff. Q.E.D.
David Handy+
Thank you, Dr. Tighe.
Jon, a partial answer to your question in #4 is that, according to my count, 100% of the women bishops voted to approve of the consecration of B. Robinson in 2003.
Addendum to my #34,
“Anglicat” is Kathryn Jeffrey+ and her interesting blog can be found at http://www.anglikin.blogspot.com. And many T19 readers will be familiar with Anne Kennedy+, who also has a blog of her own. Anne is the wife of SF’s Matt Kennedy+ in Binghamton, NY.
And I noticed, too late, that I’d been too eager to put a + in front of my friend Ruth Urban’s name. Right now, she’s just Ruth+. But on Saturday, she’ll indeed be +Ruth, although her status as an Anglican will still be in doubt as All Nations Anglican doesn’t seem to be included in the Kenyan Convocation within the ACNA (i.e., the CCP jurisdiction led by +Bill Atwood and +Bill Murdoch). But she is the epitome of an OUTSTANDING charismatic priest, whose anointed ministry has borne much fruit over the years.
David Handy+
Oops. A typo in that last post. I meant to refer to my initial post, which is #33, not 34. And perhaps I should clarify the abbreviation at the end of that first post for those who don’t remember their high school math.
By putting “Q.E.D.” after my reference to Susan Russell and All Saints, Pasadena, I was naturally referring to how theorems are considered finished and proven in geometry: “quod erat demonstatum” or “thus it has been proven.” What more need be said?
David Handy+
#34… many thanks, Phil. It is this kind of empirical data that are so helpful in dealing with touchy questions like these.
Incidentally, do you know the exact number of women bishops who voted in the GC 2003 decision? 100% of three bishops is far less statistically significant than 100% of thirty.
Also, do you know whether Geralyn Wolf was among those who voted to approve?
Finally, should you discover reliable numbers on female nonbishop clergy and female laity who voted in the GC 2003 decision that would also be interesting.
Thanks again so very much…!
“Sigh” right back at you, Jon. You did not “question the actual arguments” for WO, you asserted that women who were ordained must, necessarily thereby, have a low regard for argumentation itself. I consider that a rather breathtakingly arrogant thing to say, and so I called you on it.
Now, while I am (obviously) a supporter of WO, I will agree with you that it was not brought about as a result of “sustained deep theological corporate discernment,” and that it would have been better if it had. But I will also say that the inevitable response of many reasserters to any such discussion is “two thousand years of tradition,” followed by an apparent belief that the debate has therefore been settled. From our perspective, you — and by “you” here I mean “reasserters in general,” not “you, Jon” — are not even allowing that “corporate discernment” to take place because for you the conclusion is foregone.
Now, there is a deeper issue here, which is that the two sides are using radically different hermeneutics, which in turn means that arguments that on one side are all but self-evident appear on the other side as irrelevant at best or specious at worst — and that cuts both ways across the reasserter/reappraiser divide.
That means that it is temptingly easy for both sides to regard the arguments of the other side as transparently absurd. But — again on both sides — they are not, if you accept the foundational assumptions behind the arguments, which of course the other side does not.
But this is not the same as having “a low respect for well considered theological arguments,” which you did say, and which I am not going to apologize for calling you on.
#33… thanks NRA. Very thoughtful post, and helpful to me.
Thanks also for reassuring me that I am not completely on the moon here. I was starting to feel like the little boy in “The Emperor’s New Clothes.”
Ross, here is what I originally said:
Please read the paragraph slowly and carefully. It says that female clergy only exist because of a certain event. That event happened in the 1970s. The actual arguments used at the time were the ones I describe, just as the arguments used at GC 2003 were equally bereft of serious theological content. I then point out that this precedent, which was massively overturning tradition and doing so with little or no theological thinking, would therefore attract to it people who didn’t place a personally high premium on tradition or on basing doctrinal decisions on careful theological thinking.
I used the word attract. My argument is essentially statistical in nature. A light left on at night attracts moths. Claiming that obvious fact doesn’t mean that every insect in the vicinity of the light is necessarily a moth or that all moths within 100 yards of the light must be clustered around the light. It just explains why there are an unusually large number of moths there.
Indeed, I specifically stated in my original post that there were certain to be some exceptions.
It’s good of you to acknowledge that corporate discernment never took place for the 1970s WO decision. I am baffled how any of the people at T19 or people like us stopped that discernment process from taking place, which is a claim you make. I think we would have been delighted to participate in such a process. Sadly, as with VGR, no intentional structured corporate process ever took place. To the extent that one did take place (for VGR say), it came back with a recomendation to NOT ordain gay bishops.
You are correct that conservatives and liberals are largely operating out of two different frameworks. We have been saying this for some time. What you may not fully grasp is that when we say “serious theological thinking” we implicitly mean “thinking inside the Christian tradition.” No doubt it is possible to do other kinds of thinking, thinking that people like Borg and others do. Since their thinking is OUTSIDE the creedal tradition it may be exemplary in its own way (like thoughtful Buddhist or Hindu or Jewish thinking) but it is not thoughtful thinking inside the creedal Christian tradition.
Part of the problem is that the theological drift of the last 60 years inside TEC was allowed to proceed so far that we have people calling themselves Christians who have nothing in common with Pope John Paul or Luther or Cranmer or Thomas Aquinas. Thus the problem of the two frameworks you correctly describe.
Jon, you say:
So what you’re saying is that reappraiser and reasserters have different theological frameworks… but only the reasserters’ framework is acceptable for discourse within the Christian church.
Since this is a conclusion you derive from the reasserters’ framework, I’m tempted to call this circular reasoning. I won’t, because I don’t think it is… quite. But it’s definitely a self-reinforcing argument. The “tradition” defines the bounds of acceptable thinking, so any thinking that might challenge the tradition is ipso facto out of bounds.
In any event, I reject your assertion that my theological framework is un-Christian and therefore not admissible in Christian discourse. I would attempt to argue the point, but there’s no way I can pose that as an argument you would accept since your assumptions rule out the possibility of any such argument existing; so I’m left with no recourse but simple rejection.
Well, you are largely right. INSIDE THE CHURCH, you are right that the only acceptable framework for discussion is the basic framework of creedal Christianity. (I wish there was a better phrase for it, since I mean something a bit beyond the text of the Nicene Creed, but that’s about as good a phrase as any.) There’s lots of room for debate within the basic framework, but not when people INSIDE THE CHURCH wish to attack its basic presuppositions.
I can’t remember what your own personal theological framework is, so I can’t really comment on whether it is Christian in this sense. Forget the presenting issues of women’s ordination and homosexuality: what about the classic doctrines of the Christian faith that have been held in common by nearly all the great doctors and saints of the church? Do you believe in a Virgin Birth? A bodily Resurrection three days after Jesus death? The Trinity? That Jesus existed in a sense before all creation? That Jesus was fully God and fully Man? In Original Sin? In Satan as a real personal force (rather than a literary metaphor)? In Jesus death as a blood atonement for sin? In salvation through Christ alone?
Now all kinds of people in the church are happy to have dialogue with people OUTSIDE the church, and here that dialogue necessarily should not be constrained by creedal faith. C.S. Lewis created a club at Oxford precisely as a place where Christians could have their faith tested by people who rejected one or more of its basic presuppositions. I think it was called The Socratic Club.
So perhaps in those venues you might get a great hearing, and it might be profitable and great fun as well. But INSIDE the church we have a different set of concerns.
Wishing you well this winter solstice…. 🙂
#41 Jon:
And it is precisely that assertion that I reject.
I’m agnostic on the Virgin Birth — I don’t know, and don’t think it’s relevant. I do believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. I think the traditional formulation of the Trinity is one true way of expressing an ineffable truth in finite words, but not the only true way or necessarily the best true way in all circumstances. I believe that Christ existed before creation. I believe that Christ was fully human and fully divine, with the caveat that the traditional Chalcedonian definitions for that use philosophical categories that are no longer current. I do not believe in Original Sin as it is usually understood, although I do believe that there is a broken-ness, or at least an unfinished-ness, to Creation. I consider the real existence of Satan irrelevant — if he does exist, he’s just one more sinner. I think that the “blood atonement” for sin is not entirely false, but it’s a poor way of expressing a small part of the mystery of Christ’s death and resurrection. I believe that talking about salvation is missing the point, which is that there are things that God wishes to do and to be and we should do and be them as best we can — and with the help of God’s grace when our own “best” fails, as it will — and whatever happens after that is in God’s hands.
I strongly suspect that most reasserters would assign me a failing grade based on that summary. If so, so be it. But I believe it’s sufficient, and so I am a Christian, and so willy nilly I am inside the Church — whether or not you choose to define me out of it.
Women’s ordination had nothing to do with our family leaving TEC. The significant factors for our family were:
1) trying to explain to our children that some church doctrine was terribly wrong, to explain why the church couldn’t affirm Christ as the only way to salvation and why it was rejecting the Scriptures as God’s word – when we had told them it was;
2) trying to explain to our children why the diocesan bishop would not take a stand on those issues;
3) trying to explain to our children why the diocesan bishop disliked our parish so much (which was painfully obvious to them in his two visits);
4) the clear slap(s) in the face to reasserters which was GC06 – after so much turmoil from GC03. We sat still and tried to be proactive and gracious during that three year interval – and got figuratively spit at during GC06.
For the sake of our children, we left – and were blessed to have a place to go when most of the parish left and formed a Ugandan Anglican church plant. But it was clear from the actions of GC06 we were not welcome to stay.
Well, Ross, you are certainly inside TEC. And you seem happy there, and certainly your theology is very much within TEC’s bounds, and so on. So I have no problem wishing you all the best there.
I don’t see a whole lot of point to debates about definitions, in the sense of fighting about what the “correct” definition is. Christian is a word that is capable of multiple meanings. One way to define it would be to say that it means that it refers to anyone who believes that a certain historical person (in this case Jesus of Nazareth) had teachings of immense value that play an absolutely central role in one’s life (as one believes those teachings to be). That would be a reasonable definition, since it would be in keeping with the way we use a lot of other words: Marxist, Trotskyite, Platonist, Buddhist, Confucian, etc. In that sense you are a Christian, I am a Christian, Jack Spong is a Christian, the Pope is a Christian. Note that such a definition doesn’t demand that we specify what those teachings are or specify what we individually believe about the nature of that historical person (some might think he was God, some that he came to save us from sin, some that he was merely a wise countercultural sage) — the definition is reasonably clear (means we think at minimum that Jesus existed and was one heck of a fellow) while being fairly elastic.
But there are other definitions we could give it too. Another reasonable definition would be to define it based on looking at the writings of a whole bunch of very different thinkers who self-identified and whom historians call Christians, say between 400 and 1800, from several very different traditions — Roman, Protestant, Eastern — and look at what these very different people all kept saying in common. Whatever they disagreed about, we don’t keep as part of the definition. But if people as wildly different as Luther and Calvin and the popes and Thomas Aquinas and Cranmer and the Eastern Fathers and the Wesleys and St. Francis and Athanasius and Augustine all taught a specific theological doctrine, then we keep it as part of the definition. That you might call the “‘mere Christianity” or C.S. Lewis way of defining the word.
Or you could define Christian to mean an unmarried adult male. In which case you could say that women aren’t Christians and that when a bunch of guys give a party where a naked girl jumps out of a cake, they are throwing a Christian party.
The point is, the word “Christian” is just a sequence of symbols or set of sounds. If you say that you want it to mean X or Y or Z, then ultimately there’s no right or wrong assignment.
It sounds like, for some reason I don’t fully understand, it is very important to you to call yourself a Christian while wanting the freedom to attack a number doctrines that have traditionally defined the word. I accept that now because I have seen it so often — it is extremely important to Jack Spong, for example, to call himself a Christian as he attacks everything that Christians have believed. I accept that it’s just a strange need I’ll never understand. I myself went through a period of my life when I rejected a number of Christian doctrines — during which time I said I wasn’t a Christian, since that seemed the simplest and clearest way to communicate my plain meaning to people. But I now accept that many people don’t want to give up the moniker.
To which I say fine. I mean it’s just a word. All I ask in return is that you give us another word we can use, something along the line of the C.S. Lewis approach. If a doctrine is uniquely Roman, or Lutheran, or Eastern, or Calvinist, we leave it out of the universal definition. But if all those groups believed it, we keep it in. At one time “Christian” was the term people used, but if that has become so ill defined, I just ask for some other phrase we can hang our hat on.
Dear Peter Frank (#23):
I did not use the word, nor do I mean to accuse anyone who leaves the Episcopal Church of being, “arrogant.” What I wrote above contrasted “group self-importance and self-satisfaction” to a preferable emphasis on Jesus’ mission of self-emptying love. If you read through all the comments on this post so far, I think you will surely note many apologetic and defensive comments about being correctly understood and many comments implying anxiety about insupportable teaching within the Episcopal Church and the assumed premise that the commenter knows what correct teaching is. What I wish is that all this energy and passion would now be put to concerted use POSITIVELY WITHIN the Episcopal Church, rather than to set up shop elsewhere. I believe that we evangelical Anglicans are to be the new prophets – risking whatever comes our way – to name TEC’s sins and call TEC to sincere repentance and true righteousness. In my experience, our children are more impressed by what we their parents and grandparents actually stand up for in the name of God than by any unholy and misleading teaching by clergy of any rank.
Why does it always devolve into the WO argument?
BTW, TEC is LOADED with evangelicals! Far too many. Just look at this blog for instance.
I hate to see conservatives leave over women’s ordination. What that means, among other things, is that they are abandoning many dedicated women clergy who are themselves conservative on the other two issues: biblical authority and homosexuality…
Well firstly he is wrong because by being ordained any woman has automatically failed a litmus test for orthodoxy in regard to biblical authority. (for the full argument re WO feel free to read this http://sbarnabas.com/blog/theological-objections-to-womens-ordination/
but two points I would make. The person who offers a biblical passage reporting that Christ sent 12 Apostles and some women – out to preach the word- would do well to ask why the two (apostles and women) are differentiated in the text- and also consider that they were sent to preach. That is not sacramental and therefore the job of priest and laity alike- which is why all were sent
The person #46 ask why it always descends to WO argument – I suggest because this is what broke the church and turned it heretical- ensuring personal opinion and desire overcame biblical faithfulness- thus the moment will always be returned to
Theer are wo genuine problems re: wo. The first is beyond our ability to solve: The homosexual lobby (and vgr specifically) have chosen to tie wo with the acceptance of homosexuality and ssm. In fact, these two have gotten linked because both suggest radical reorderinig of our relationship with the past, and this common element gives the two a high valence.
Second, and surely more important to me, is t hat there is indeed such a thing as female nature, and essential distinguishing characteristic, shared by so many women that we may see its outlines regardless of the century.l This is equally true of males, of course. Men are law givers; women are nurturers. Now, I know this is an oversimplification, but our reproductive functions, the gift of evolution, shape who and what we are in so many ways, we cannot count them. However, because humans are almost infinitely malleable, we can train women to be men and, alas, vice versa.
the distinction remains however. The church needs a new role, a role of substance and significance for women to fill with their special
nature. Not the priesthood (in the usual sense) because the priest is a law giver, a translator of the law. Can women not do this? They can be so trained, but it is a waste of talent, so to speak. They have more important things to do. Like what? Outreach, for example, where their essential nature for fostering will attract many who will otherwise see Anglicanism as a liturgical barrier, byzantine and convoluted, existing only to use ritual to foster mindless adherence to rote beliefs. Moreover, I suspect the right women will get men into church, believe it or not. The lawgiver is not the prime attractor; a woman may well be. Such is evolution. Finally, they will make an excellent confessor, if that’s the word I want, since the function of confession should be the path to forgiveness. I would think that the women in any church would favor such a listening ear.
I don’t know, but I continue to think wo is the wrong path for women to take for it it is making a sow’s ear out of a silk purse. Larry
What we don’t need is the priestly harridan, the feminist demagogue (like Schori) who uses the priestly role as a bully pulpit for an agenda.
I appreciate the back and forth between Ross and Jon. It is important to distinguish between the content or strength on one’s faith and the object of the faith. As a 55 year old who can say I have made many mistakes in my church involvement, I have come to the conclusion that I will do my best to share only the faith that I have received. The beliefs summarized in the 39 articles are substantively in agreement ( on the core issue of the Gospel) with other protestant confessions. I may have various opinions and thoughts that come from being an American, or a baby bommer, etc, but I need to keep those out of any attempts I make to share the faith or to make decisions as to church matters. Even if I am wrong on something I can join Bishop Allison in saying, ” I did not make this stuff up”.
Seeing distinct persons primarily as symbolic of population groups is one of the saddest mistakes that commissions on ministry and their puppet bishops have made. With respect to persons as parish priests whom the laity genuinely respect, it always comes down to which man and which woman is the subject of the question.
Hi Brian. You ask “Why does it always devolve into the WO argument?”
In the case of this particular thread, we are talking about WO because that is the subject of the original Washington Post article. It would be most strange if the WP piece was about WO, and instead we spent the thread talking about cabbages or the World Series.
Thanks, Matt (#51).
I’m glad you clarified that the ACNA is very intentionally restricting the office of bishop to men. I think that’s a sensible decision, and perhaps even a necessary one (pragmatically speaking). And that’s not just because of the conservative Anglo-Catholic wing of orthodox Anglicanism in North America, for there are also evangelicals who are deeply and firmly opposed to WO. But certainly, for the Forward in Faith group, plus dioceses like Ft. Worth and Quincy, it’s absolutely essential. After all, Uganda, Kenya, and Rwanda ordain women to the piresthood and the diaconate, but they have NOT consecrated any women bishops.
We sure don’t want to repeat the mistake of the C of E’s General Synod this past summer, which reneged on the promise to allow a safe haven for those opposed to WO. I think the provisional constitution of the ACNA is very wisely formulated to preserve a genuine space for BOTH the pro-WO and the anti-WO sides.
My friend Ruth Urban will be more of a missionary bishop (a truly apostolic role which the Church of Nigeria is using so effectively in frontier areas). She was a church planter in Brandon (a suburb of Jackson, MS). Her future role within All Nations Anglican Church is still unclear to me. I think she’s expected to make it up as she goes. But she’ll be moving to Amarillo soon, where this new multi-racial prayer book group is based.
Anyway, thanks again, Matt, for clarifying an important point.
David Handy+
Yes, the Episcopal Church needs Evangelicals. Now if they would just stop chasing them away!
But it also needs Christians who exemplify all three streams of Christian expression in their lives: Evangelical, Sacramental and Charismatic.
Jon, Anglicat at your service here. I would be honored to make your acquaintance so that you no longer have to say that you do not know any conservative women priests. Who knows? Maybe we already have bumped shoulders while I was down in Plano in 2001. Yes–orthodox women priests were there! Please visit my blog: http://www.anglikin.blogspot.com or reach me through my personal inbox: kgjeffrey[at]msn.com.
Grace, peace, and thanks,
Kathryn+
Jimmy Dupre stays in Anglicanism because it is Protestant. I stay in it because it is Catholic. Stripped of nuances, both of us can’t be right.
#55: LibraryJim, I SO agree with you. In the Diocese where I live I know of at least three biblically orthodox evangelical women priests. They are fine preachers, excellent teachers, and caring competent pastors. They see TEC as a mission field and they proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ at every opportunity through camp ministry and cursillo, as well as parish ministry. They DON’T want to leave TEC. And they do see themselves as a ‘rare breed’…the FIF men don’t want to see women ordained and the more liberal women priests don’t trust them because of their orthodoxy. Pray for these stalwart and faithful servants…please.
In and out of TEC, there are many orthodox Anglican women priests quietly going about their duties, just as PresbyG describes. A good example of one of these who jumped ship is Linda Crowder, who successfully planted a thriving congregation in California through Uganda. Gamaliel would have to agree that these women are bearing excellent fruit through their ministries.
Quick note to Kathryn (Anglicat)…. Salutations! (As Charlotte says to Wilbur in the lovely novel by E.B. White.) So very nice to meet you.
God bless Anglicat and all the other women priests in TEC who are doing good work and proclaiming the Gospel. I have not personally reached an opinion on the thorny issue of WO, except the view that how it was introduced as a matter of historical fact in the 1970s was wrong — the process i mean.
Just for clarity to everyone, let me say I again (which I indicated in my first couple posts) that I do not doubt that there are some female priests in TEC who fully understand the Gospel in their preaching. No doubt at all.
All I was initially doing is simply correcting an error on a simple matter of fact in the original article. The author seemed to be under the impression that most female TEC clergy were deeply orthodox. This wasn’t a minor error, but one central to a key point he was making.
As a number of people have now indicated on this thread, including PresbyG most recently, that is simply not so. They are overwhelmingly a very rare breed. (Orthodox TEC male priests are uncommon — orthodox women are apparently VERY rare.)
It is still tragic that the departure of the orthodox should leave these few women that much more isolated, but it is always a mistake in a newspaper article to argue for a thing by (unintentionally no doubt) giving false numbers in support of your position.
Again, the issue at hand is not the raw number of orthodox female clergy one could name. If someone were to name in the next post 50 names… that wouldn’t in itself contradict what myself and some others have said. Because for everyone of those, there are many times that number of female heretics. The relevant question is percentages. In stat language, you don’t need just a numerator, you also need a denominator. The only clear piece of evidence we have heard so far is the suggestion that 100% of female bishops voted for VGR in 2003. Looking at those kinds of empirical data are the only way to determine whether what some of us are saying here on this thread is true.
Again, my fondest wishes to Anglicat and her counterparts in TEC. Blessings to her and her sisters….
Rob K (#57) writes:
(Jimmy Dupre indicated in an earlier post the Thirty Nine Articles as a standard for Anglican belief.)
That’s a good point, Rob. It’s because of that that I do not myself favor demanding as normative the 39 Articles for orthodox Anglicans, and why I have viewed with concern recent efforts in certain orthodox statements (e.g. issuing from the Global South) to use the 39A as a summary of binding normative belief.
Bottom line: as a Reformation protestant by way of Cranmer and Hooker and Luther, I love the 39A. But I accept the fact that they are very Protestant in their theology and practice (e.g. forbidding the elevation of the host, the general hostility to Rome and Roman practice, their understanding of justification and free will, etc.). And because I love my A-C brothers (just as I am sure Jimmy D does) and don’t want to create a place where they can’t be authentically Anglican but also authetically AC, I have concluded that I just can’t logically demand that the 39A be a normative statement of belief for all Anglicans.
Jimmy D may jump in and clarify what he meant further. He and i are very close in theology. We both heard the gospel by way of orthodox Anglicans Paul Zahl and Fitz Alison and so have a very “early Reformation” understanding of it: very low view of human capacity, very high on Christ’s saving power, very low view of human free will, very high view of grace, and so on. The way I read what Jimmy said is I took him literally: he was describing what he does personally. When he shares the faith, he sticks with the basic gospel as it has been given to him, a good distillation of which is in the 39A. I didn’t hear Jimmy say that ACs must be forced to agree to our Protestant understanding in all respects or they can’t be good Anglicans — but of course he can comment further.
I think the intention that most of us have is to find a new Anglican structure that will permit ACs to absolutely do their own thing (e.g. no woman priests in their parishes, no women bishops of any kind, elevation of the host, belief in transsubtantiation, prayers to saints, Marian devotion, etc.) and will also permit Reformation Anglican parishes of the Fitz Alison type to do their own thing, while working together in love.
Correct, Jon; my point had to do with being grounded in some Christian tradition rather than picking and choosing a few scriptural passages to reinforce ones opinions. The tension between protestant and Roman views is never going to go away; and that same tension is probably in all of us as we struggle with the question of what we bring to the table. I believe Luther/Cranmer/Calvin got closest to the core menaing of the Gospel, but that is always going to be a minority view within Christianity