Some Anglo-Catholics might be uneasy with the predominance of evangelicals among those seeking a third North American province of the Anglican Communion. But the leadership of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth has thrown its support behind the movement in part because of assurances that there will be no women bishops, according to the Rt. Rev. Jack L. Iker, Bishop of Fort Worth.
“Though we have our continuing differences over the issue of the ordination of women, Bishop Duncan and the [Common Cause Partnership] lead bishops have given assurances that there will be no women bishops in the new province and that the historic, traditional theological position on this matter will be protected, respected and welcomed,” Bishop Iker said.
“Anglo-Catholics, while grateful for this attitude, have called for a thorough theological and biblical study of the issue of the ordination of women as a top priority in the new province,” Bishop Iker said. “It must give due consideration to the reality that the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, which together comprise over 80 percent of the world’s Christians, have already spoken on this issue and that unilateral actions on our part have already seriously damaged ecumenical relations for the future. Are we willing to submit to the mind of the whole church? Are we really committed to abiding by common consent as determined by general councils?”
Hopeless. Having women priests but not Bishops is so stupid and just sexist. This breakaway is evangelically led and lacks any sense of ordered ecclesiology.
If women bishops are wrong- then so to are women priests.
Either the new province is orthodox or it is not. You cannot pick and choose or it is really no different from what went before.
I think it can be justified. If not, then the NT does not support the existance presbyters. And it expressly supports women as deacons.
Really Br. Michael,
Where exactly is the scripture showing that women were “ordained”…the “laying on of hands” to be made deacons in the Church? Lay deaconesses????….maybe….Ordained????…I don’t think so! Which brings me to another question…by laying on of hands to make a female a part of the clergy…..they are denying her ability to go forward as a Bishop because why exactly? If she is good enough to be a deacon or a priest….why not a bishop? But let me be clear, if most don’t already know….I do not support putting a collar of any type on a woman, but I can’t help but feel that compromise is just a short road to nowhere on this issue and cannot for the life of me understand how one can reason out that it’s okay to have a female deacon and or a female priest but not a bishop? Clarity would be nice on this!
3, there is nothing like that mentioned in the NT. And Paul refers to Pheobe as a deacon. The NT simply does not set out detailed instructions as to how the Church is to be organized.
In fact I think a good case could be made for limiting the Episcopate to Jewish men only. After Jesus and the apostles were Jewish men.
Bishop Iker’s argument based on the teaching of the Orthodox and of Rome makes me wonder how he would then defend his belief in the 39 articles and the Protestant Reformation in general.
It seems more logical to base one’s argument on Sacred Scripture rather than on the Tradition of two Churches Anglicans of all stripes purposefuly seperated themselves from.
Besides which there are many within the Roman Church who are working from the inside to promote the ordination of women and the beginnings of whispers within Orthodoxy (namely the Orthodox Peace Fellowship).
Support for women’s ordination can and is found by some, especially Anglo-Catholics (the Affirming kind), from Newman’s Development of Doctrine.
In time, the agreement not to ordain women bishops will eventually become an issue of division and it is almost certain that this new Confederation will spawn more disgruntled splinters.
If it does NOT, it will be a FIRST in church history.
Regardless, God will use all splinters and fragments for His glory and for the salvation of souls.
My guess is that they will accept any woman priests who wish to also be a part of this new Province, will refrain from ordaining any more women priests (even though there will never exist an official policy of exclusion) and limit women to the deaconate in the future. As I said, just a wag on my part nothing more.
Br Michael,
That argument (your last one in re: Jewish men) is about as useful as the shellfish argument in illuminating what Scripture actually says on the qualifications of presbyters and the role of women within the Church. There are a number of articles and threads here and over at Stand Firm that analyze and argue for/against the relevant passages and Traditions surrounding the issue.
I agree (with RPP and ODC) that women’s ordination is a nonsense, but I understand why the Province has reached the compromise it has. In doing so, at the very least, Apostolic Succession has been and will be preserved. This is no small thing.
I also find hope in +Iker’s expressed intent that the Province enter into in depth discussion on this subject. I believe the new expression of Anglicanism in North America is in a better place to discuss these things than Anglicanism at large has been for the last few decades. There is both an Evangelical commitment to the authority of Scripture and a Catholic commitment to the voice of Tradition. If these two come together, who knows what is possible?
And this is precisely why the new “orthodox” thing will die. The rings of holiness get smaller and smaller until each man is an island. Sad, really, when one considers the predicament of faithful, orthodox female priest in the Episcopal church today.
Peace,
archangelica,
Rome and the Orthodox will never move on W.O. And “Affirming Catholicism” is not Anglo-Catholic, whatever they may claim. They like the drama and the pageantry of Catholic worship but they are theological liberals one and all.
Newman’s idea of the development of doctrine necessitates that new doctrines follow the trajectory of the teachings that have come before. If a new teaching breaks with Tradition it can hardly be called a development; at that point it is simply an innovation.
#8, mannainthewilderness,
I’m sure the same thing could have been said to those faithful Catholics who objected to the Medici Popes making Cardinals of their six year old nephews.
Actually mannainthewilderness,
I have been questioning alot of late and more so on the fact that if assurances in this arena of women in Holy Orders is a huge concern for Bishop Iker and many others who hold that same view…why didn’t we all leave back in 1977 when the Anglican Province of Christ the King was set up…instead we waited another 30 years….for what?
I am beginning to think that that is when we all shoud have severed our ties with TEc! I think they knew what was to come and we wandered for 30 more years in the desert! How sad!
#10..Pope’s make Cardinals but they don’t make Bishops. At one time you needn’t even be ordained to be a Cardinal if memory serves.
#1. rugbyplayingpriest – to an extent, I agree with you (indeed, I suspect many here would prefer to see the Rev. Canon Dr. Alison Barfoot as their Bishop instead of a Chane or Bennison), nevertheless, I think your intemperate remarks (“stupid…sexist”) betray a heart of hatred. On the contrary, this is a sign of mutual submission between co-laborers in the gospel of Christ Jesus. In time, a joyous accommodation might be made.
“Bishop Iker’s argument based on the teaching of the Orthodox and of Rome makes me wonder how he would then defend his belief in the 39 articles and the Protestant Reformation in general.”
Does he believe in these things? I’ve seen no sign of it — and I certainly hope not!
7, I don’t think that is a shellfish argument. If you focus on gender as a requirement for ordination, then why not Jewishness?
By the way, archangelica, I have said some harsh things in the past and I apologize.
This looks to me to be a charitable compromise, given that the error of TEC in acting without waiting for a consensus has resulted in women ordained into the Apostolic Succession. I don’t see the problem, even for WO supporters. Here, with a reasonable accommodation made for those affected by the current innovation, the Church is doing what the Church has always done the way the Church has always done it. Even if WO supporters are right (and I think them wrong), no harm is done by waiting a few centuries to gain a consensus before reinitiating the experiment (if that is indeed the outcome of the period of study). And if some solid theological discussion took place in the meantime, so much the better. Surely no is harmed by not being ordained. Why should this action be at all divisive?
By the bye, #15, Paul establishes conclusively the Jewishness of Christians (grafted by faith onto the Jewish vine), but not the maleness of women (Galatians 3:28 has no applicability to ordination). The Jewish argument is quite inapt.
It is rather sad to see the Anglican Church in North America starting to unravel about the edges before it even officially exists.
However popular this move might be in San Joaquin, Fort Worth, and Quincy, women clergy and their flocks in the Diocese of Pittsburgh are not going to be happy that their (arch)bishop has backed off on his prior commitments and relegated them to second-class status. Of course, women’s ordination isn’t the only point of tension.
Liturgical style—whether 1928, 1979, or free-form prayer-and-praise—is going to be divisive as independent parishes grow increasingly more diverse without a strong central [i]jus liturgicum[/i].
Somebody above mentioned the 39 Articles. Surely you don’t think that Article XXII (to pick just one example) is still viable in most parishes of the Diocese of Fort Worth? Catholic and Evangelical devotion are very different animals that will have trouble hanging together without anyone committed to Broad Church inclusiveness. The theologies of Grace and the Means of Grace taught by the Council of Trent and the Westminster Assembly are not going to be comfortable companions in a church that demands doctrinal clarity.
What happens when the African primates sponsoring ACNA realize the number of American Anglicans who are divorced and remarried, and demand reform of the ACNA marriage canons? I think it is inevitable, and it is going to go over like a lead balloon in wealthy breakaway parishes where men and women in second marriages are active members and heavy contributors.
What happens when the economic and political vision of Christian Socialists from outside North America clashes with the vision of those who see government as only a problem, never a solution? Bring up the Millennium Development Goals in mixed company and watch the fur fly.
Somebody needed to think about all of these issues before trying to put together a coherent denomination composed of strong-minded individuals who value their personal visions of orthodoxy above any corporate vision of unity. When the center does not hold, all things fall apart.
#12,
I hear you, but the point still stands. Church leaders can make sinful or aberrant decisions. If those who object are always painted as divisive “fundies” we will inevitably end up with something that looks very much like TEC in its current incarnation. I could as easily have chosen same sex blessings as a point of contention– those who object to that have been addressed in the same manner. But I thought it would be refreshing to pick another example.
16, I simply disagree.
Re #11, “why didn’t we all leave back in 1977…”
I don’t think my mom would have let me.
Dale, I think that you will find that a lot of the nay sayers are not in the ACNA. And my worthy opponents on WO will have equally harsh things to say about TEC.
Br. Michael,
If the only argument presented against W.O is the fact that Jesus chose twelve men to be his apostles you [i]might[/i] have a point. I am fairly sure, though, that you are aware of the other arguments. I compare this to the shellfish argument because it is often thrown into discussions as though one thing logically follows from the other, when a) in fact the one thing does not follow from the other and b) it is assumed that this is the point on which orthodox beliefs hinge and having “undone” this point, no objections remain.
Again, I haven’t the time or inclination to get into another debate on W.O. here– the search function will provide plenty material for your perusal.
22, I am aware of the other arguments, and I agree that one single fact is not dispositave. My ultimate point is that, take as a whole, I think that the NT is not totaly clear on the organization of the Church nor of the absolute requirements for leadership in the Church. That being the case I am not dogmatic on this isssue.
Don’t forget that other Christians, citing the same scriptures, would preclude women from teaching boys in Sunday school or having any teaching role whatsoever.
AMiA itself allows the ordination of women as deacons.
In fact the creation of presbyters (elders) is ambiguous in the NT. We see bishops (overseers) and deacons. We know that Pheobe was a deacon. (Here I think that we reasserters go through the same girations to work around the text that we accuse the revisionists of doing.)
Quite frankly I am willing to let the ACNA to work this out as they seem fit. No one need join if they disagree.
#16 Daniel Muth says:
It’s not really my place to get in the middle of pro- and anti-WO arguments amongs reasserters — I’m a reappraiser and have no say in what ACNA decides — but I did want to respond to this point.
If it turns out that supporters of WO are right, then the result of those centuries of waiting for consensus is that there will be many women — many thousands of women — who God desires to be ordained, who God has in essence commanded to ordained ministry, but who will be unable to comply with God’s commands because the church will not let them. This is not a small matter.
Now equally, of course, if the supporters of WO are wrong but women are ordained anyway, then this is also a violation of God’s desires and is likewise no small matter. There is no safe way out of the dilemma.
But I think it is false to claim that “no one is harmed” by not being ordained. If ordained ministry is God’s desire for a person — and the entire process of discerning a call to ministry is to find out if that is the case — then not doing as God desires is surely harmful.
I am so weak. 🙂 Br Michael, you write:
[blockquote]In fact the creation of presbyters (elders) is ambiguous in the NT. We see bishops (overseers) and deacons. We know that Pheobe was a deacon. (Here I think that we reasserters go through the same girations to work around the text that we accuse the revisionists of doing.)[/blockquote]
I don’t see where you find ambiguity here. In the N.T. the office of presbyteros (elder) and episkopos (overseer/bishop) are one and the same. It is after the Pauline corpus is complete (perhaps after the canon is complete, although some see the “angels” of the churches in the Apocalypse as a reference to a further developed episcopate) that certain presbyters are chosen to function as “first among equals”– points of unity and guardians of the apostolic charism.
As for deacons, other threads have already referenced the existence of non-ordained woman-deacons in the ancient church whose primary ministry was to female baptismal candidates. As to whether Phoebe was a deacon or not (or what kind of deacon that would mean), that’s hard to say. If Paul wanted to refer to her as a servant of the church, chances are he would have used the same word which can also translate “deacon”. I don’t personally have strong feelings regarding women in the deaconate unless it is viewed as the step before priestly ordination.
Ross,
You speak well. Part of the problem, I think, is that we sometimes tend to confuse THE ministry (i.e. ordination) with ministry in general. All members of the body of Christ are called to ministry both within and without the Church. The question of holy orders, however is a question of headship (from an evangelical perspective) and sacraments (from a Catholic). While I would argue that holy orders are reserved for certain called men, ministry in general is open to (and expected of) all.
Dr Tighe,
“Does he believe in these things? I’ve seen no sign of it—and I certainly hope not! ”
Now, would you think it fair to say that Bishop Iker believes in the Reformation and 39 Articles every bit as much as John Henry Newman?
Archangelica- the “Affirming” kind are not Anglo Catholics. And in recent years, some of the people claiming to be affirming Catholics have been affirming everything from open communion to gay monasteries. In any case, “Affirming Catholics” is an oxymoron, since to be Catholic, one must be willing to submit to the broader church, and the so called Affirming Catholics came into being as a result of refusing to submit to the universal church on the matter of women’s ordination.
While Newman’s theology and ecclesiology gave birth to the Anglo Catholic movement (in the sense that the Oxford Movement is distinct from the previous “High Church” Anglicanism), one of the unfortunate side effects is that in modern times, his work has often been intentionally misinterpreted by progressives to do precisely the opposite of what he intended. Clearly, his intent (and a plain reading of his writing) was to draw Anglicanism closer to the Church Universal, and particularly to the ancient, undivided Church. In a sense, to deepen our Communion across time as well as ecumenically in the present. In order for Catholic order to be brought into Anglicanism, the interpretation of documents such as the 39 articles, and certain prayer book rubrics had to be broadened (compare, for example, the US BCP 1928 to the CoE BCP of 1662) to allow for commonly held Catholic doctrines and liturgical practice. It was clearly NOT his intent that his work was to be taken to mean that arbitrary broadening of doctrine and rubrics was acceptable to attain some political or social goal within the Church.
Dale Rye,
I think you are missing a major point, which is while there is considerable variance of theology within the new province, it is actually considerably less variance than currently exists within TEC. Within TEC, you would have to add such extremes as open communion, removal of the Creeds from the liturgy, and clergy in a variety of non-marital sexual relationships, not to mention huge variation on the interpretation of the sacrament of matrimony, none of which variations exist within the ACNA.
I think what we have seen is the first of several breaks in the break up of TEC, which is the actual, central, unstable entity. It will not take a huge stretch of the imagination to see some of the more progressive elements breaking away because (in their view) TEC is not moving fast enough to redefine Christianity. And there is certainly likely to be a fault line developing between pro-Covenant and anti-Covenant dioceses (parishes, individuals).
25, you prove my point. You are starting to move beyond the canon. And you are arguing as to what Paul meant be “deacon”. If Pheobe had been male then you would assume the point. But she is not and so you need to argue that deacon does not mean deacon.
I don’t think that Paul was writing to adress our 21st Century hang ups. Nor perhaps out 2nd century hangups.
Secondly, if Paul meant that the Bishop and Presbyter were one and the same, and if we have deacons, then where do we get the second (omnivorous) Priestly order?
My point is if we have males (Jewish?) at the Episcopal level and allow parishes to have women at the presbyter and deaconal level (and only IF THEY WANT THEM), can’t this worK?
Many of the Primates don’t have a problem with this.
However if we can’t then let’s fragment. I daresay we can argue over the liturgical colors and the date of Easter if we want too.
“Ross” – Yours is a significant and problematic point, which I hope you do not intend to push to any logical conclusion. If you’re right, then either 1) God has been asleep at the wheel – and acting grossly out of step with the way He acts throughout scripture – by leaving the Church with ridiculously unclear orders and not one single prophetic voice for 2000 years; or 2) every Christian who contemplated this matter for said 2000 years has willfully ignored God’s direction and call – including the women He presumably called into His service and who refused; or 3) the Church has been right for 2000 years in not ordaining women and a fairly small group of well-meaning but muddle-headed people have jumped the gun without doing their theological homework. I know which I think the most likely. I would suggest the possibility that, with some exceptions, it is not God who commands ordination, but the Church. It may be the Church’s prerogative to change the practice in this case, but is is not a matter of disobedience not to. I don’t buy it as I see ordination s a sacrament defined by Christ and therefore not subject to modification by the Church, but I think it a far more defensible position for your preferred practice than the one you have taken.
Br Michael,
God made man male and female.
He did not make man Greek and Jew.
The former is a reflection of the order of creation.
The latter is a response to the fallen nature of humanity.
People who keep raising the “then they should all be Jews” argument are making a category mistake of the first order, and it is a sad commentary on how little anyone really thinks about this issue or listens to any counter reasoning that it continues to be raised.
Time does not permit me to go into detail about how the “Phoebe the deaconess” business is bogus as well (there was just a very long thread on this over on StandFirm), rest assured, it is.
Oh, and the “how can he believe the Articles” business is a red herring as well. Read as the 1662 BCP–supposedly the standard of the new province–states: in their “literal and grammatical sense”–there is nothing in the Articles that cannot be understood in a truly catholic (though not Tridentine) sense, and not even all that much that would upset a Roman Catholic with a decent sense of history.
Re: #27,
“Dr Tighe,
‘Does he believe in these things? I’ve seen no sign of it—and I certainly hope not!’
Now, would you think it fair to say that Bishop Iker believes in the Reformation and 39 Articles every bit as much as John Henry Newman?”
“Every bit as much as John Henry Newman?” — when? 1828? 1833? 1841? It makes a big difference, after all. My hope is, 1841.
I have a solution. Allow those women who are already ordained to continue to exercise the duties of that ordination. But simply do not ordain any more women to the priesthood.
Problem solved.
Except those in favor of WO won’t go for the second part, and those opposed won’t go for the first part.
Oh well.
Jim
libraryjim, I’d accept both parts, albeit reluctantly, and with a few more clauses.
31, so where does it say, “My presbyters shall all be male.”? And you are not saying that women are the result of fallen humanity.
Look, lets try this: What criteria did Jesus set down to ordain His presbyters? I am sure you know.
Of course, folks who are anti-WO believe that women should not be deacons, priests or bishops. Those who are pro-WO believe that women are able to be deacons, priests or bishops if they are so called.
The issue is that it is the bishop who is the symbol of unity with the wider Church. Provided that a male bishop ordains a priest, the anti-WO will recognize that ordination provided that the priest is male, even if the ordaining bishop also ordains women to the priesthood.
Thus under the ACNA arrangement, each side must accept a certain amount of restraint. The pro-WO side must ask its women clergy to accept the burden of not being bishops, even thought the pro-WO side believes them to be fully capable and perhaps even called to such an office. The anti-WO side must agree to live side-by-side with women priests, even though they do not accept that these priests are validly ordained.
I believe that this can be done. Even though the overall regime is illogical (for the reasons stated in post #1, I have to ask “since when has that interfered with the Anglican way of doing things?”
No, you are, at least by implication, along with the gnostics.
There is a deep logical flaw here. There are all kinds of things that are not said or spelled out in precise terms in the New Testament that I strongly suspect you would agree are dominical or carry divine authority (try to find homoousios in the New Testament). But let’s start with the very issue at hand here: all the apostles were male. So were all their successors. And so were all of their successors. And so on. Our Lord set an example that the church, guided by the Spirit, has universally (read: catholically) honored, except for notoriously heretical sects–montanists, gnostics, and now TEC. Given TEC’s history, maybe the Spirit knew what He was doing.
jamesw (#37),
As usual, I heartily agree with you. And although I support WO myself, I think it’s both wise and essential that the new ACNA refrain from consecrating women bishops. Besides, the number of orthodox women priests is actually miniscule, although the number of orthodox lay women is rather substantial (and they have a stake in this matter too)!
Besides the outstanding priest Alison Barfoot mentioned above (who is on ++Henry Orombi’s staff in Kampala), there are a few other superb female priests who theoretically might make fine bishops, such as Canon Mary Hays, who serves with distinction on +Duncan’s staff in Pittsburgh. But my guess (I haven’t asked them but I went to seminary with Mary Hays and served alongside Alison Barfoot in VA and I’ve long admired them both) is that they would willingly sacrifice their chances to be “elevated” to the episcopate for the sake of the orthodox cause in Anglicanism.
But perhaps it should be noted that an orthodox woman priest has recently been consecrated a bishop in one of the newer splinter groups. That is, although it’s gotten very little attention on conservative Anglican blogs like this one or Stand Firm, my dear friend Ruth Urban (who is the godmother to our two children, and who’s the epitome of all a godmother should be), who had planted an Anglican church (aligned with Kenya) in the Jackson suburb of Brandon, MS, back in 2004 and has pastored it ever since, was ordained a missionary bishop in All Nations Anglican Church, which is based in Amarillo, Texas. This breakaway group is headed up by “Archbishop” John Githiga, who is the older brother of Gideon Githiga, the Bishop of Thika in Kenya.
Now if anyone will make a fine orthodox woman bishop, it’s my friend Ruth Urban. But my understanding is that although +Gideon Githiga was supportive of Ruth’s consecration and wrote a public letter saying so that was read aloud at the service on December 20th, +Bill Atwood intervened and asked +Gideon not to participate in laying hands on her himself. This is a very clear sign that the ACNA is truly committed to the idea of restricting the episcopate to men, as +Atwood is one of the key leaders of the ACNA and is himself personally supportive of WO, as is the Anglican Church of Kenya that he serves.
I regret that my friend Ruth had to leave the Anglican Communion in order to be made a bishop, but I personally support the ACNA’s position nonetheless. Contrary to all its naysayers suppose, including some commenters above, I believe that the leaders of the ACNA are entirely in earnest about becoming a “submitted” church, that prizes accountability over autonomy, and unity over independence. And I commend them for it.
David Handy+
as i read through the above posts, i noticed the term “shellfish” argument which i, at first, believed was a typo for “selfish” argument…however, as i continued to read through comments that i have read many times before, perhaps “selfish” argument is the best way to describe the thought that women should not be ordained…i just don’t see god saying that only men are to be ordained in scripture…and i’m just looking at scripture…not canons, rules, and the like.
He didn’t say it. He did it. We are just following His example.
#29, Br Michael.
Did you actually read what I wrote? Your response makes me think you didn’t. I don’t know how to respond because I don’t know how I could be any clearer than I was.
With regard to woman deacons, I said rather clearly that I don’t have any strong feelings pro or anti, although I would want to follow the lead of the ancient church on this. I don’t require the word for Phoebe to mean servant any more than I require it to be deacon.
With regard to Jewishness… others have already answered you on that and with some theological precision. If you want to ignore what they say or simply cop-out with, “I just disagree”, that’s up to you, but don’t consider their points answered by the latter.
You note that I have gone outside of the canon. Yes indeed. I did so to discuss the later development in calling out one presbyter and giving him a more apostolic role (important with the passing of the last apostles). Two points here:
1) So what? This development has nothing to do with Paul’s instructions to Timothy or Titus which are focused on the office of presbyter (priest). If a women cannot be a priest, according to Paul, it is fairly logical to assume she can’t be a bishop under later dispensations.
2) I have consistently, here and (especially) in other threads argued from both Scripture and Tradition. Both negate W.O. although on different grounds. Scripture works from the position of headship and the order of creation; Tradition argues from a sacramental/ontological perspective (although John Chrysostom and others also appeal to Paul’s teaching on headship). Scripture and Tradition compliment each other in this way.
Bluntly, as a Catholic Christian I cannot accept W.O. because the Church Catholic teaches– and has always taught– that this is impossible. As an evangelical Christian– even if I did not accept Tradition as authoritative– I would arrive at the same conclusion from Scripture, but for different reasons.
As to “why didn’t we all leave in 1977?” — some left to establish what they said would be “the” Anglican Church in America. It didn’t work out that way. Egos and political spats caused splits for often petty reasons, and we have today numbers of small groups. Some stayed, as a witness and with the intention of reforming TEC. The original vote in 1976, remember, was very close. It may have seemed possible to reverse the trend, but the problem was the revisionist religion in TEC. How do you effectively argue for the unity of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church when large numbers of leaders don’t hold the same faith, much less the same church order?
On the other hand, with this new body, Iker and company may have a chance to restore the traditional church order. ALL of ACNA’s groups are believing Christians, who may take seriously the call to do the theological study and reflection such a topic requires. I have observed a change in tone in just the few years I’ve been reading the blogs. In 2003 or early 2004, it was not unusual to see evangelicals posting comments to the effect that they objected to the “gay” agenda but they weren’t going to join with misogynist bigots. I now see the large majority of such commenters taking the traditionalist position seriously and treating it with respect. Many minds have either been changed completely or have at least begun to deal with the underlying issues, including the very important one of the unity of the church in a day and age when we are under assault by militant secularism and militant Islamism.
RE: “It is rather sad to see the Anglican Church in North America starting to unravel about the edges before it even officially exists.”
It is amusing to see the naivete from certain quarters with regards to the players in the ACNA, both male and female. And it’s deeply revealing to see the commenter also be supported in his naivete by his hope and eagerness to see the failure.
We have:
1) A beautiful compromise that all have agreed to in the ACNA — considering that both sides feared the “alternative ending” that is, either “no females purporting to be ordained” or “no protection for Anglo-Catholics.” Instead, we have a perfectly arranged compromise for those within the ACNA.
2) We have female clergy feeling free to speak up and voice their arguments — and that will continue and is a good thing.
3) We have bunches of revisionists bleating about “rings of holiness getting narrower” — which is certainly gratifying.
4) We have enclaves of safety for Anglo-Catholic anti-Wos, and enclaves of safety for pro-Wos.
5) We’re not going to see women clergy — except very very minisculely rarely — leave the ACNA for TEC — because after all, they’d rather be in a church where their bishops actually believe the gospel, then in a church where 2/3 of them do not.
6) And we have a church who has dealt decisively at least in their policy statements [i]within months[/i] of ordering themselves.
While there will be endless debates, the C&Cs;are set up where neither argument can be forced as a matter of policy on parishes or dioceses.
And at all of this, Dale Rye says, upon announcement of an agreement: “It is rather sad to see the Anglican Church in North America starting to unravel about the edges before it even officially exists.”
That’s the most revealing comment, in my opinion, of the fears and hopes of “Communion Liberals” that I have seen in a long while.
I am ry if my use of words like ‘stupid’ make it sound to some (#13) that my heart is full of hatred. Far from it but I am passionate for orthodoxy and had HUGE hopes that his new province could rescue a broken nglican Church.
Alas it has chosen instead to carry the cancer of its first non-biblical innovation into the new body, despite its united fight over the second non-biblical innovation.
You may love the sound of a ‘pick and mix’ Anglican church whose only unifying theology is a hatred of homosexuality….I think it is a bit sad and wooly. No it is worse- it is hypocritical. No to this innovation- yes to that one! That is a kind of faithfulness that is little different to what went before. If there are to be women priests in the nrew province- it needs to seriously address the arguments against- without clutching vague Juina straws….and THAT has not yet been done else I would be a supporter.
Far rather I would join an emerging province united in love of Christ and faithfulness to scripture and tradition. And in unity with 80% of Christians world-wide.
RPP,
I hear you, but give the Province time. I believe that Duncan et al are faithful men of God who desire to walk in obedience. Give them time to hold the discussions that need to be held before prejudging the outcome. Theologically you and I agree; but perhaps I have a greater sense of hope given our new context.
I object rather strongly, however, to your assertion that the only unifying theology of the Province is a hatred of homosexuality. I think you know better. If not, read the Jerusalem Declaration again for a better idea of how much we all have in common. The Province is young and needs the chance to grow into what it will be. This takes time, and while we’ve grown tired of waiting for the Instruments of Unity to do what they were supposed to do (and show no sign of doing), patience is still a part of the fruit of the Holy Spirit.
RE: “Alas it has chosen instead to carry the cancer of its first non-biblical innovation into the new body, despite its united fight over the second non-biblical innovation.”
I assume that you mean the introduction of chemical contraception — the thing that began them all on the slippery slope?
RE: “And in unity with 80% of Christians world-wide.”
But that’s not going to happen even were the Province to be totally anti-WO. So there will be no “unity with 80& of Christians world-wide” no matter what the ACNA does.
Sarah, you may be right (#47, second part), but it is true that ecumenical efforts among Anglicans and the RC and Orthodox were in much stronger shape before the advent of WO. The outlook was guardedly hopeful; since then, bleaker and bleaker as the innovation gained momentum.
Katherine, I think it depends on how you define “ecumenical efforts”.
I very much value the spirit that Christians of all stripes have with one another as our cultures decline and as it becomes clear that our efforts need to be more about combatting the angry-anti-Christians in power [not merely the non Christians] and basic pagan ethos of Western nations than the various flawed theologies that we observe in other churches or our own.
But I also think that many of the official and formal acts are really more exercises of process and illusion as well.
So I distinguish the two demonstrations of ecumenical efforts there.
The fact is . . . on this earth the various denominations will not be in unity. On the one side, the Roman Catholic — appropriately so, given its theology — would need all others to agree with them and cross the Tiber in order to actually have “unity.” Anything less isn’t “unity.” And that’s fine — I recognize rationally why that would be so.
On the other side, you have various denominations who don’t even think about RCs or the Orthodox. And then you have many of the buffoonish leaders of the churches that do think about such things, leading the charge.
Keep in mind that Griswold was a “leading figure” in “ecumenical efforts” — and I smile at that.
I’ll put it to you that even in the 60s much of the supposed “agreement” amongst Anglicans and Roman Catholics had at least a little bit to do with our Fearless Leaders’ ignorance and shallowness than real agreement. In looking at the 60s in TEC culture, I don’t have a whole lot of faith in that decade either.
So I guess I’m not certain that the guardedly hopeful outlook that so many saw there was actual reality.
I could be wrong, though, about that. I’ll have to consider it further and read more to really come to firm conclusions.
Hi Farstrider,
Who do you consider to be the ‘Church Catholic?’ If we consider all Churches members of the Church Catholic, then I don’t think we can say the Church Catholic ‘teaches’ that WO is unacceptable, since many other Churches (including Evangelical churches) allow for WO or at least women in ‘presbytery’ roles. If we begin restricting the members of the Church Catholic by some of the particular teachings they hold, then how do we determine who really is a member of the Church Catholic, since it seems that this exercise of attempting to find agreement on teachings (played out in ecumenical discussion) has thus far proved futile? So I guess my real question is, who do you consider to be the Church Catholic … what are the marks of the Church Catholic?
In 1968, a discernment of the whole Anglican Church at Lambeth determined that Scriptural and theological arguments as presented for and against the ordination of women to the priesthood were inconclusive and thus not prohibited, but were, at the same time, to be continually studied and tested against Scripture. Now at some point, the whole Anglican Communion (as represented at Lambeth) may discern that indeed WO is not biblically or theologically legitimate. And I think we must certainly accept that this might occur at some point (though I hardly think this would happen in the near future). But I think that in a divided Church (meaning our wider divisions, RC, EO, Anglican, Presbyterian, Baptist, etc), the place we must first seek a ‘Catholic teaching’ is within the body that meets in council together; thus the AC. And we have decided the matter of WO as a whole Church.
Having said this, I don’t for a moment think that there has been sufficient provision made for those who do not accept the ordination of women on biblical and theological grounds. I also do not believe that the assertions made at Lambeth 68 concerning the careful deliberation and study of WO are currently sufficient. I think this is unacceptable as it does not protect the peace and order that enables the Catholicity of the Anglican Communion in which those who meet in council are able to come together to continually discern Scripture across time.
I am the author of this article and was in attendance at the Mere Anglicansim conference at which Bishop Iker made his remarks about no women bishops in the proposed new province. During informal discussion with conference participants the following rationale for permitting female priests, but not bishops was offered by several people presenting themselves as orthodox evangelicals.
[b] Please note I am neither endorsing, nor condemning the reasoning, I am merely attempting to provide additional information that was left out of the original article.[/b]
As I understand it the rationale is as follows: the problem with female bishops for evangelicals is one of headship. I am told that some of the Common Cause Partners permit female priests and will ordain new ones who are judged to be called by God and qualified as defined in the canons and constitution of the proposed new province, but all female clerics who seek to affiliate will not “have authority over a man” such as would be the case if one was rector of a parish. Females presbyters in the new province must be under the authority of a male cleric when functioning as a priest. Deacons as I understand it, are normally under the authority of either a rector or a bishop, so the distinction is less necessary in explaining the rationale for ordaining women to the vocational diaconate.
[b] Please bear in mind that I didn’t make the rule and I am not passing judgement one way or another on the merits of the stated reason for the way things were set up.[/b]
Re: #50
To answer your first sentence means to deny the premise of your second (and various other parts). See the Declaration [i]Dominus Jesus [/i], especially part IV where one finds, in part (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html):
[blockquote] The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession53 — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: “This is the single Church of Christ… which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth’ (1 Tim 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with himâ€.54 [/blockquote]
and
[blockquote]Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 [/blockquote]
and
[blockquote]“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reachâ€.64 In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communitiesâ€.65 [/blockquote]
That’s what the “Church Catholic” is all about, Charlie Brown (c.f. CIC 1752: [i] … and the salvation of souls, which must always be the supreme law in the Church, is to be kept before one’s eyes. [/i].
[blockquote]”…but all female clerics who seek to affiliate will not “have authority over a man†such as would be the case if one was rector of a parish.”[/blockquote]
#51….what exactly would be the point of being a priest (female) then? This furthers my feeling that being a part of this New Province isn’t for me! This rationale just sounds ridiculous!