“We’re trying to be servants,” Katherine Martin, a cleric from Auburn, Ala., told me. “I’m not being welcomed to consecrate [Communion] in Quincy [Illinois] or Fort Worth [Texas],” which are two dioceses that don’t ordain women, “but both the bishops of those dioceses couldn’t be more kind.”
I wondered if the men would take a similar position, agreeing to be “servants” while limitations were placed on them.
“I’d be lying if I’d say I wasn’t disappointed,” said Canon Mary Hayes of the Pittsburgh Diocese. “I’ve been a priest 25 years. I’m delighted to be in a body of people who have different views. It’s not about getting my way.”
Lesbian relationship – a woman at the altar? That is going way to far. The sacraments and those participating are not participating in a sexual relationship.
Gene Robinson had a secret meeting with homosexual Roman Catholic priests. He told them that if they wanted to move the RCC towards blessing their homosexuality, they should work for female priests. In that way, they can bring about the same success that has been achieved in the Episcopal denomination – it was actually growing through the early 2000’s, but with the advent of Gene, it became one of the fastest declining (last year it was the fastest and most likely it will be next year, too, with the stats reflecting the exiting of the four dioceses).
Can a denomination have female clergy and remain orthodox? My answer is now, no. (That is despite my knowing many wonderful, orthodox female priests.)
“They’ll wake up,” predicted the Rev. Joy Vernon, a Canadian priest ordained in 1989. “Jesus Christ ministered to women way beyond the culture of His day.”
Vernon seems to imply that only women can minister to women? But of course Christ was male, so perhaps men are suited to minister women beyond the culture of the day?
It’s always puzzling to me when people on either side of this issue speak about it as if it is black and white. Clearly, faithful people who read Scripture with integrity can come to different views on this. The “dual integrity” (I think that was the phrase) is the obvious answer on this until such time as people come to a common understanding – whatever that looks like.
FWIW, I think TEC’s failure to honor its promise to non-women’s ordination folks that they would never be forced to accept it led to a significant amount of the distrust reasserters have felt with the assurances about the ‘big tent’ allowing for their presence.
Julia: I think the Anglo-Catholic point of view is that the gender of the priest must be male since the priest is re-doing what Christ a male did in his sacrifice. I really do not know how the folk in CANA and the REC can go along with this kind of theology.
The quip about it being a lesbian relationship must be a misquote. It is beneath any Bishop to say such a thing.
I found what now seems to be a “prophetic” posting on this “Midwest Conservative Journal” thread by one “Invicta Veritas” (whose name is, I think, Tom Abell or, more formally, Blessed Thomas Abel):
http://themcj.com/?p=5196#comments
and whose remarks I would copy-and-paste here, were it not for my fear of elvish censures.
I think the “Jesus ministered to women way beyond the culture of his day,” remark is intended to indicate that Jesus is in agreement with WO supporters rather than a reference to any gender roles. Bigger problem with the statement: it’s wrong on its face. During His earthly ministry, our Lord was entirely unexceptional, save for His claims for Himself and His identification of the Kingdom of God with Himself and His movement (John the Baptist is not of the Kingdom, for instance – which says nothing about John other than that he is not a disciple of Jesus). Jesus’ celibacy and easy relations with women (still quite stiff by today’s standards), along with his high moral view of the Torah, are of a piece with any number of itinerant rabbis of his day. His “you have heard it said…but I say to you…” statements are a standard rabbinic technique, “building a hedge around the Torah.” His miracles, preaching, teaching, relations with His disciples, the fact that the 12 are all male – all of it is conventional, standard stuff for His type of Second Temple period rabbi (miracles are standard for rabbis of the time, the specific ones He performed, inasmuch as they repeatedly support His claims for Himself, do stand out). What set Him apart, of course, was His high self-awareness, repeatedly demonstrated claim to be God incarnate, and equation of the Kingdom with Himself and His movement.
With that in mind, one cannot really claim that He was somehow at odds with or ahead of the culture of His day with regard to relations with or ministry to women. His was a fairly standard role at the time, the expectations of which were well known and unsurprising. Again, it is not His moralism or challenge to the mores of His day that was ever at issue, but His claims of divinity. The whole Jesus as boundary-challenging sensitive new-age guy thing is anachronism on stilts. If you want to justify WO, look elsewhere.
montanan,
It’s not about “coming to different views” vs. “coming to a common understanding.” It is about being faithful to what has been given to us. We don’t determine what the faith is by applying our reason and values to Scripture (or any other set of “sources”); we receive it, believe it, live it, and hand it on unchanged. Anything else is just making up your own religion.
Episcopalian “revisionists” look at the Church’s Tradition on sexuality and it does not square with their values, so they want to change it. Anglican “conservatives” look at the Church’s Tradition on the all-male priesthood and it does not square with their values, so they want to change it. There is absolutely no difference between the two; both subordinate the faith and order handed down to us from the Apostles to the values of us modern children of the “Enlightenment.” The “conservatives” have no standing to condemn the “revisionists,” because they, too, are “revisionists.”
Metr Jonah was right. It is not about “opinions,” and “views,” and “stands” on this or that issue. It is about whether or not one is faithful to the fullness of the Apostolic Tradition. That is the fault-line that WO reveals.
Jesus did challenge boundaries and was sensitive — new age guy, Daniel I can agree with you on that!
Eugene, it would be interesting to know if the good bishop did say that and if he did what was the context. I understand the anglo-catholic view — just couldn’t get to the lesbian relationship part of it.
I do hope that the FIF and other ACNA groups that hold the anglo-catholic view do not make it their main priority to challenge WO for those of us evangelicals who value it. I am quite okay with the current status in the canons but would oppose the prohobition on evangelicals who do support it as much as I oppose the TEC stand to require it of those who do not hold my view.
… that should say, “TEC stand to require it of those who do not hold their view.”
Although I question her holy orders, I do not question the wisdom of Travis Boline when she says, “The global south has shown us a model of keeping to the main thing, while not being of one mind. . . . Bishops serve the whole church, and if the church is not of one mind, then it’s not appropriate for women to be bishops.”
I do wish those on both sides of the issue of WO would exercise such balance. ACNA as a whole is doing so and is getting not a little flak for it.
Chris Jones (#7) – I believe I understand completely your position on WO and the reasons against it. It puzzles me that some from your side of this issue would therefore say people such as ++Duncan, ++Orombi, etc. are being “revisionists” and – maybe this is my paradigm of what that means – therefore unfaithful to Scripture. It also puzzles me when pro-WO people suggest the same of people who voice your opinion. The issue is very complicated, with examples and references in Scripture supportive of each side, depending on one’s reading. It also comes to the issue of what is the role of the priest in the Sacrament of Eucharist. Please note that I haven’t expressed a personal opinion here on WO; rather, I’m commenting on the way in which people approach argument for or against.
The oft-repeated line that Anglicanism is a three-legged stool with Scripture, tradition and reason each being equal legs doesn’t square well, IMHO, with the reasons for its initial formation. I’ve always liked better the ‘Big Wheel’ idea – you remember the children’s toy, a tricycle of sorts, but with a semi-recumbent position – Scripture as the biggest of the three wheels and the one which powers the other two; those two are essential to the function of the device, but are supportive, rather than being driving forces in and of themselves. Assuming one holds to the three-legged stool thing, one can’t hold to Scripture and tradition and assign reason a subordinate role. Similarly, TEC’s use of reason (and quite flawed reason, at that!) as the main issue whilst tossing out tradition and, to a lesser degree, Scripture, also doesn’t jibe. Giving Scripture the primary role, again IMHO, is the only way to make sense of this. However, simply tossing out tradition and reason doesn’t set well with the value(s) of Anglicanism – or of the Church catholic, for that matter.
[blockquote]”Can a denomination have female clergy and remain orthodox? My answer is now, no.”[/blockquote]
Does that include all of the 37 (out of 44) Anglican churches worldwide that have female clergy? Specifically, does it include the Anglican provinces of Kenya and Uganda (and their American mission plants now in ACNA)? They have had women clergy for almost thirty years. An “renewed Anglican Communion” that includes only churches that avoid ordaining women would include only 7 provinces. Anglo-Catholics who think that leaving TEC for another Anglican denomination will solve the controversy over this issue are not looking at this broader picture.
julia #8 – You lost me. I said that Jesus did *not* challenge the standards of His day, save those that dealt with Himself as Messiah and God Incarnate, and that He was *not* a sensitive new-age guy in any sort of late 20th century way. He gives no indication that He has any issue with the roles of women in Second Temple period Judea and Galilee and calls no one to challenge them. His primary proclamation is of the Kingdom, personified in Himself and lived out in His movement, wherein women do not have Apostolic roles.
The Church, of course, is different. Whereas Jesus has no ministry to gentiles (He never even touches one), the Church is explicitly charged in the Great Commission to go to the gentiles, fulfilling the promises made through Isaiah and others. The issue there is that the intent of the prophets is that the gentiles be called *as gentiles* – no conversion to Judaism is necessary. This is not a challenge to Jewish culture, which is built on the Torah and the Prophets, but rather a fulfillment of the prophets, “fulfillment” meaning a proper interpretation of the prophets – again, a standard bit of rabbinic terminology: to “abolish” the Torah is to misinterpret it, to “fulfill” it is to interpret it properly. This is not intended to be a cultural revolution. God’s people Israel itself is the cultural revolution.
Remember, during His earthly ministry, Jesus inhabited a culture founded upon the Torah, upon God’s self-revelation. He offered very little challenge to it save for its denizens to properly understand the Torah and the Prophets and, as a result, to recognize who He is and follow Him, i.e. enter the Kingdom. How women get treated never rates on the scale. Jesus’ example is not necessarily one to look to: consider again how He avoids gentiles yet calls His Church to a different ministry to them following His resurrection. A simplistic understanding of Him as challenging His society in ways He didn’t is bad scholarship and bad discipleship. Look not to Christ’s earthly ministry but to His Church for guidance re WO.
The “lesbian” trope derives from the idea that the mass is the wedding supper of the lamb. The male Christ (with priest in locus christi) becomes one flesh with the female church through an intimate physical communion of real bodies. Upsetting the gender equation destroys the symbolism — and “if it’s just a symbol to hell with it”, as Flannery O’Connor said.
Christianity is a very materialist, enfleshed, and gendered kind of religion. Protestantism and modernism have spiritualized so many of the key concepts that people are sometimes shocked when they are reminded that the figurative and literal are conflated in sacramental theology.
I’ve wondered and asked before if the folks who engaged in the “debate” in the 1970s largely used AngloCatholic foundational theology for their resistance.
The more I read, the more it appears that they did.
Which gets you right to the problem in the 1970s.
Given Bishop Wantland’s — [and boy do I love to read his take on canon law] — remarks, along with so many others that I’ve come across, I think we can safely imagine now the “debate” that went on in the 1970s in TEC.
[blockquote]I asked him if he wanted the ACNA to eventually outlaw ordaining women entirely.
“Of course. That’s our mission,” he said. “Christ is the bridegroom and the church is the bride. The priest at the altar is an icon of Christ. What image is that if the person at the altar is a woman? It’s a lesbian relationship.”[/blockquote]
Basically . . . You’ve got evangelicals like me being mind-boggled by the fundamental heresy expressed therein . . . of course the priest does not re-present Christ, nor the table re-present the one sacrifice for many.
And then you’ve got evangelicals like me being mind-boggled by simply the rhetoric, which is based on the foundational beliefs of AngloCatholics — which I do not believe.
And then finally you’ve got evangelicals like me saying “not gonna touch that one . . . ”
And the “debate” is over.
No wonder the AngloCatholics failed to bestir the evangelicals in the 70s.
As a reformed evangelical opposed to WO, I probably would have kept silence as well.
But I’ve also said that the huge — massive actually — issues that will end up being the division in ACNA won’t be over WO. That’s a surface issue [based on deeper more foundational issues], and I believe that they’ve handled it well by allowing essentially autonomy on the part of dioceses — and even parishes which I understand can switch affinity groups.
The potentially divisive issues will be the foundational ones that are far more serious regarding soteriology and the ordo salutis, the nature of the sacraments and the priesthood, and much more that are the important dividing lines.
montanan (#11),
“It puzzles me that some from your side of this issue would therefore say peoplesuch as ++Duncan … are being “revisionists†and … therefore unfaithful to Scripture.”
First, I should make clear here that I am not an Episcopalian nor an Anglican of any sort anymore. I left ECUSA a quarter-century ago.
What is “puzzling” you, I think, is that for most WO opponents it’s not a matter of being “faithful to Scripture.” If people can have different views on this while all being “faithful to Scripture,” then it is clear that Scripture is simply not going to settle the matter. You can say “Giving Scripture the primary role is the only way to make sense of this”; but don’t you see that as soon as you have to say “depending on one’s reading,” you have given away the store? If the meaning of Scripture depends on one’s own reading of it, then you can make Scripture mean anything you like. Once again, you are making up your own religion, not following the one we have been given. There has to be a rule of faith that guides our interpretation and understanding of the Scriptures. Otherwise it is simply “open season.”
I would not say that ++Duncan and those who agree with him are “unfaithful to Scripture”; I would say that they are using the Scriptures in a wrong way, a way that is not faithful to the Apostolic Tradition. They are using the Scriptures to justify the ordering of the Church’s life according to Enlightenment values. It’s the result of “Scripture Alone, depending on one’s reading.” “Scripture Alone” is a bad slogan; “Scripture First, within the Tradition” is far better.
Eugene, the REC prohibits women in holy orders on straight scriptural grounds. CANA includes parishes having female priests.
Each side in this debate is hoping the other will “come around in time.” The ACNA is a “do over” opportunity. ECUSA dishonored its promise to always respect the consciences of those opposed to women in orders. ACNA promises to do better. Time will tell.
“You’ve got evangelicals like me being mind-boggled by the fundamental heresy expressed therein …”
Fundamental heresy? Pray tell, what council, local or ecumenical, condemned such belief, or anathematized it as “heretical?” I must have overlooked it.
Thanks Katherine: I should have said AMiA instead of CANA. AMiA will not ordain women to the priesthood: neither will REC: but not because of the alleged “lesbianism” that Bishop Wantland proports
I think that Sarah 1 is spot on – we will have to deal with some huge issues regarding the nature of holy communion, what a priest is & does, and how God’s grace is applied to us and what the effects of that grace is.
I am part of a committee tied to ACNA. I am a John Stott, JI Packer sort of Evangelical. Another member of the committee is the leader of FiF in our area. He seems to be insisting that all ACNA clergy must adhere to the idea that the “real presence” of Christ inherently means that he is physically present in the elements of communion. I can affirm the real presence of Christ in communion, but I do not, and cannot, believe in transubstantiation. He also believes that there is an instant and necessary change in the being a person who is ordained. While I accept and affirm that being a priest is a matter of identity and not simply a matter of holding an office, I do not believe that the identify is fully and solely created by the service of ordination.
I can give him freedom to believe as he believes – but can he give me freedom to believe as I believe? If so, ACNA can grow and the Lord will help us to see more clearly into the issues over which we differ. But if I must conform to his convictions, then ACNA is doomed.
The issues are indeed very important ones. The nature of ordination and of the sacraments are not creedal issues, but they are almost primary issues. We will have to resolve them. If the REC and the APA can bridge their differences (for they were in the process of uniting before Common Cause came into being), then I hope that all in the ACNA will be able to as well. But we may yet founder on such issues; we need prayer and patience.
Um #19, AMiA itself doesn’t ordain women to the priesthood but its umbrella organization does.
From the AMiA website (http://www.theamia.org/experience/pqanda):
[blockquote]What is the Anglican Mission’s position on the ordination of women?
Based on a careful study undertaken by the Rt. Rev. Dr. John Rodgers, the Anglican Mission has determined that the most faithful response to the witness of Scripture and its teaching on headship would dictate that women be ordained only to the diaconate. While recognizing that the Church is presently seeking further clarity in this matter through a period of discernment and “reception,†the important concept of “headship†proved to be the most critical issue for us as we developed our policy on the issue of women’s ordination. AMiA Womens Ordination Study
In 2007, the Anglican Mission expanded its structure at the request of Archbishop Kolini by creating the Anglican Mission in the Americas. This umbrella organization includes the Anglican Mission in America (AMiA), the Anglican Coalition of Canada (ACiC) and the Anglican Coalition in America (ACiA). This structure embraces two countries (the US and Canada) as well as two positions on the ordination of women. Both the ACiC and the ACiA ordain women to the priesthood, as does the Province of Rwanda, while the AMiA maintains its policy of ordaining women only to the diaconate. The Anglican Mission in the Americas provides a way to maintain the integrity, and honor the consciences, of those with differing opinions and policies on women’s ordination.[/blockquote]
#30 – should be “AMiA” instead of AMiM
This is confusing, but enlightening. I understand Austin #14 and see how that theology argues for a male only Priesthood. I understand Sarah1#15 and that she rejects the theology espoused by Austin #14, but opposes WO.
What I do not understand is if you don’t agree with Austin #14, which is consistent with the position of Bishop Wantland, what do you consider to be the scriptural argument for a male only Priesthood. Is it purely based on the fact the 12 Apostles were male, or do you base that on 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, which would not seem to distinguish between Priests, Deacons, and bloggers for that matter?
Basing it on bridegroom being male. Does that hold for bride only being female. Doesn’t fit.
This is a fascinating issue but it’s not an issue that is going to be resolved anytime soon. What’s critical for me is that ACNA has found a genuinely Anglican solution which respects the integrity of both sides. It calls for sacrifice from each side in that Anglo-Catholics are going to have to learn to live with the reality of ordained women in various parts of their jurisdiction, and supporters of WO are going to have to live without women bishops. Individuals like us may debate this matter until the eschaton, but the leadership of ACNA has determined that this is NOT “the main thing.” I think they’re essentially right about that.
As someone more on the Anglo-Catholic side of things I’m curious about the reasons why Sarah (#15) and other evangelicals, like the REC, oppose WO. The Anglo-Catholic position is essentially the same as the RC and Orthodox position — it’s ultimately an iconic and sacramental problem. It really has nothing to do with the abilities of women. In fact it’s hard to imagine the Church in this or ANY age without the many non-sacramental ministries of women.
I personally think that the Scriptural case against the sacramental ministry of women is much stronger than the case for it, but the fact is that there is a legitimate case one can make from Scripture for it. Tradition is clearly heavily against it, and it’s not unreasonable to question whether the current crisis in global Anglicanism isn’t tied in a very significant way to the innovation of WO. So I’d be interested to understand the evangelical case AGAINST WO, from those who are both evangelical and opposed to WO.
In the final analysis, however, I think that ACNA has landed on the only workable formula for the two positions on WO to live together with genuine integrity. The formula they have adopted allows space for those who believe in WO without destroying the integrity of Apostolic succession for those who do not. I wish this is how the Anglican Communion had dealt with WO thirty plus years ago – for if the mind of the Church catholic is ever to change on this issue, I can’t imagine any other way that change would come to pass other than the brilliant way the ACNA has resolved it.
“The new province is a mishmash of former Episcopalians, ranging from almost-crossing-the-Tiber Anglo-Catholics to low-church charismatics, and it’s a mystery as to how they’re all going to get along.”
This has always been a feature of Anglicanism. I believe that it represents the true broadness of Anglicanism and is nothing new. I can’t see that this would be a ‘deal breaker’ when we have more pressing business to deal with and that is the single most important purpose of all: to carry out the GREAT COMMISSION which tells us we are to spread the word of God’s love for us and Jesus’ saving actions for each one of us through His crucifixion and resurrection.
The question of WO/not WO, I strongly feel that that is a far from important issue compared to the question of evangelism and ought not to deter the that which God calls us to do. Personally, no one has ever given me reason to see the question of WO/not WO as anything but a cultural comfort question. I am and always have been more comfortable with male leadership but that has never stopped me from being led by an ordained woman.
24 Chris Taykor:
“I think that ACNA has landed on the only workable formula for the two positions on WO to live together with genuine integrity. The formula they have adopted allows space for those who believe in WO without destroying the integrity of Apostolic succession for those who do not.”
I completely agree with this.
I would think that most ACNA evangelicals are against WO (or neutral) just because it cuts against the grain of tradition/conservative outlook (I suppose this explains the REC position). The evangelical supporters – I assume – would be orthodox evangelicals who are liberals (I assume they are a small number but they do exist) and those evangelical clergy and parishes that have close ties or are led by orthodox female priests who do not want them excluded or downgraded.
I would rather have seen the ACNA grandfather existing female priests in but only allowed for female deacons in the future – this would have avoided the painful harsh personal results.
The ACNA’s real problem will be if a diocese is formed that has one or more female priests already in it but the diocese then votes to not have female priests – will they grandfather (probably the smart choice) or downgrade the status of the priest to Deacon. Of course her parish could then vote to join another Diocese.
Chris Jones (#16) – while I disagree with you about the position of Scripture – though I am not a sola scriptura believer – I appreciate your response.
For those interested in stats, George Conger has an interesting piece in Religious Intelligence yesterday about the Diocese of Accra voting to permit the ordination of women. In his report he gives an up-to-date breakdown of WO in the Anglican Communion. He states:
“Of the 38 Provinces of the Anglican Communion, eight do not ordain women: Central Africa, Jerusalem and the Middle East, Melanesia, Myanmar, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, South East Asia, and Tanzania; two ordain women to the diaconate only, Congo and the Southern Cone; including the Church of England 24 provinces ordain women to the priesthood: Bangladesh, Brazil, Burundi, Central America, Hong Kong, North India, South India, Indian Ocean, Ireland, Japan, Kenya, Korea, Mexico, Pakistan, Philippines, Rwanda, Scotland, Southern Africa, the Sudan, Uganda, Wales, West Africa, and the West Indies; while four provinces have consecrated women bishops: the Episcopal Church, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Women clergy have stood for election as bishops in Southern Africa, while the extra-provincial Church of Ceylon ordained its first woman priest in 2006, and the extra-provincial Diocese of Cuba consecrated a women bishop in 2007.”
The full article may be found here:
http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/news/?NewsID=4654
I found it interesting that the four most thoroughly revisionist provinces (US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) are the only ones that have consecrated women bishops so far.
Evangelical and WO supporter here. I respect the other side, and I understand the headship position even though I hold to one-fleshness in marriage. However, I have a difficult time understanding the sacramental theology held by +Wantland.) As I understand the Eucharistic celebration it is not just the work of the priest, but the work of the whole Body of Christ, through which God is working through faith. Therefore, a priest’s gender really doesn’t matter, as the faithful are the icon not just the one wearing the funny clothes upfront.
Setting all this aside, I predict that this splitting hairs business will grow strangely dim as we in the West increasingly become the religious minority. When that time arrives, we will have more important matters to discuss and worry about.
RE: “What I do not understand is if you don’t agree with Austin #14, which is consistent with the position of Bishop Wantland, what do you consider to be the scriptural argument for a male only Priesthood.”
Hi Mitchell . . . the Pauline epistles seem to be quite clear that women are not to take leadership roles in the church. Neither I, nor the evangelicals that I hang with, equate that with anything connected with the sacraments.
The frightening thing is that so many AngloCatholics don’t understand just how very very much different Reformed Anglicans are in their understanding of so much theology — and as such there is even limited agreement when there is agreement about being anti-WO.
There are hosts of evangelical Anglicans, I should add, who would be shocked — once they understood it — at the foundational theology about the Eucharist and the priesthood and soteriology that Bishop Wantland expressed in the above paragraph quoted by Duin.
And then . . . such is the disparity in foundational theology that you now have evangelical Anglicans listening to such sentiments and saying “wow, I hadn’t realized that was the only reason to be opposed to WO . . . I must be pro-WO, I guess, if that’s the only argument against it.”
And so the rift that appears to have begun back before the 70s regarding this specific more minor issue appears to widen decade by decade.
Revdons (#30)
If “it(the eucharist) is not just the work of the priest, but the work of the whole Body of Christ, through which God is working through faith.”
Then why do we have to have a priest to have communion. Our parish (REC=NOT ANGLO-CATHOLIC!!) has Holy Eucharist every Sunday. Our rector went out of town for vacation and our Deacon had to lead us in Morning Prayer. The original plan had been for us to have a “Deacon’s Mass” using pre-consecrated elements, but our PRIEST forgot to consecreate the elements before he left town. If he had consecrated the elements, he would have done it probably one evening before he left and almost certainly WITHOUT A CONGREGATION being present. So, if the communion is a work of the entire congregation, why does the priest “do the magic” to prepare the elements ahead of time for distribution later.
Also, I know of one parish (also REC) which only has a priest once or twice a month but they have communion every week since somebody goes and picks up the elements from one of the visiting priests at their home.
The Anglican evangelicals who oppose WO (REC, others) do so on the “headship” argument and on the Pauline epistles which prohibit female leadership in the church (As Sarah 1 says, #31).
The Anglican catholics oppose it, in addition to the biblical prohibitions, on the grounds that the priest represents Christ at the table. Basically, as a man would be a poor icon for the mother of Jesus, so a woman is not a fully effective icon for Jesus.
Both groups note the tradition which has always been all-male priesthood (or presbyters, as the case may be). The catholic group tend to call that Tradition and give it relatively more weight than do the evangelicals.
Nonetheless, these two groups approach the problem from very different perspectives and come to the same conclusions. I don’t, myself, see the need to persuade everyone to agree with me for the same reasons. I am satisfied if they agree with me at the end. This is the basis on which evangelicals and catholics are attempting to work together in the ACNA.
Good discussion. It clearly expresses the contrasting reasons of Catholics and Protestants for opposition to WO. It’s my understanding that the opposition to WO based on the “headship” issue is also shared by the LCMS. Chris Jones – am I correct? Thx.I disagree with some commenters who seem to think that contrasting views on the sacraments, while important, are still secondary to the overall issue of getting away from the “heretical ” TEC.
rob k, I am speaking only for myself, again, and not for any “party” in the church. I don’t think that the sacraments are a secondary issue. However, the Prayer Book traditionally went down the middle on this as well. For the catholics, “The body of Christ, broken for you.” For the evangelicals, “Take this in remembrance that Christ died for you, and feed on him in your heart by faith.” The intention of the Reformation was to eliminate the magical superstitious attitude towards the eucharist which was held by many. For myself, so long as a properly called and ordained minister/priest is presiding in Christ’s place at the table/altar, and so long as the words of institution are used (“This is my body … This is my Blood”), then I’m not too worked up if the folks next to me, or in the next parish, within the Anglican tradition, have a somewhat different understanding of what God is doing with this. God’s grace poured out to us is a great and wonderful mystery. Both as to the definitions of the Trinity in the Creeds and as to the definition of the grace in the sacraments, we are humans trying to understand as best we can what God is and what he did and does for us. In both cases, I accept the traditional teachings of the Church from the early days and do not seek to know more than has been revealed to us.
#32. recchip,
The reason a priest is necessary to celebrate HE- what’s that song from “Fiddler on the Roof”? Oh yes, TRADITION. 🙂 However, on the flip side, a priest is not allowed to celebrate HE by himself/herself. There must be at least one other person and that is what I was merely communicating in the first place. The Holy Eucharist is the work of the Body of Christ and not just the seminary trained, validly ordained, oddly dressed, paid professional. Of course, this “rubric” was brought back to the Church during the Reformation and has been part of the Prayer Book Tradition since 1549. However, like all things Anglican, it has been interpreted differently by the various flavors present in our tradition; that is, some focus on the priest’s role in HE and others focus on the whole people of God, both ordained and lay, and their role and the role of faith in the celebration. But the bottom line is, HE doesn’t happen unless both lay and ordained participate – something both Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals (both Arminians and Calvinists) can agree upon. Even the preconsecrated elements in your example were (supposed to be) consecrated at a celebration where the whole people of God gathered even though they were distributed after that original celebration.
As a matter of interest, do we have two Sarahs now on T19? Sarah, and Sarah1, being different individuals, that is?
I suspect that Sarah1 is the one and only Sarah given her penchant for using RE:[quote from someone] followed by a pithy, and well-thought out response. But I was somewhat suprised to hear Sarah1 is anti-WO. I would sit at her feet anyday.
As for you, montanan, I should have warned you early on–WO is simply not a topic that can be discussed properly via blog posting, although I appreciate your attempts and for the most part agree with your sentiments. At least you didn’t try it over at SF…hahaha.
Katherine, very cogent synopsis of the issues. I also think you’re right about Sarah1=Sarah=Sarah Hey, the tone is unmistakable, so why not just use the real name? Anyway, although Sarah is spot on on so many issues, I don’t think her comments here shows a deep appreciation of Anglican history. She states in #31 above:
“The frightening thing is that so many AngloCatholics don’t understand just how very very much different Reformed Anglicans are in their understanding of so much theology—and as such there is even limited agreement when there is agreement about being anti-WO.
There are hosts of evangelical Anglicans, I should add, who would be shocked—once they understood it—at the foundational theology about the Eucharist and the priesthood and soteriology that Bishop Wantland expressed in the above paragraph quoted by Duin.”
My reading of Anglican history is that both the Catholic and Evangelical wings of Anglicanism have a very good idea what the other side thinks and have understood it (and fought over it!) for about 500 years now. There is NOTHING unique to either the Protestant OR the Catholic side of Anglicanism. What Anglicanism does offer, which is both essential and unique, is the possibility for post-Reformation Christians to remain in communion with each other DESPITE these profound and unresolved differences and tensions. Anglicanism offers each side a way of understanding things and recognizing that others see it profoundly differently – yet remaining in communion with each other. This is the heart of the famous via media of Anglicanism, it is also the sole unique (and for me critical) contribution of Anglican Christianity. This is why it’s so funny to read folks who now say ACNA will never survive because it contains so many contradictions (Calvinists and Anglo-Catholics), as if this was something profoundly new to Anglicanism!
Through the long history of Anglicanism there have been some who couldn’t stand the tension and simply had to step outside the Anglican tent (at least temporarily). The REC is a classic example of this — so is the Anglo-Catholic Continuum founded in the late-1970s. However, what the REC has now recognized, and what the Anglo-Catholic Continuum has not yet recognized, is that without the tension between the Protestant and the Catholic faces of Anglicanism, you don’t have the fullness of Anglicanism. This tension, and the ability to find ways to live with it, IS the essence of Anglicanism, and ACNA has this DNA at its core. TEC and the revisionists tried to exploit this Anglican capacity for ambiguity and elasticity to work a new compromise between historical Christianity and late-20th/early 21st century Western cultural secularism. It doesn’t work. What the current crisis of Anglicanism reveals is that there are limits to genuine Anglican flexibility. Anglicanism, at its core, is a genuine expression of historic Christianity. For about 4 decades the revisionists have bent and twisted it, but at the end of the day they could not transform this fundamental reality. The current Anglican renewal and realignment is proof positive that when the flexible boundaries of Anglicanism are transcended, the historic Christian core of Anglicanism will reassert itself.
Protestant and Catholic Anglicans will continue to do what they have always done: argue, disagree, even fight with each other — but they will also continue to find ways to live with each other and their very different understandings (just as ACNA has done so beautifully). Anglicanism will continue to offer the post-Reformation Christian world a gloriously messy but profoundly unique and wonderful model of what a church that is both Reformed AND Catholic can be. Our Eastern Orthodox, Reformed, and Roman Catholic brothers and sisters will continue to be both alternately appalled and fascinated by our very messy Anglican comprehensiveness. The only ones who will be disappointed will be the revisionists who, once again, have tried and failed to convert an authentic face of historic Christianity and make it conform to the parameters of their contemporary secular culture.
Widening Gyre (#38) – I appreciate your advice! I had not intended to debate on WO (though that is what the original article for this thread is about), but rather to comment on the degree to which I am puzzled by those who are unable to see the image of Christ – as a faithful, intentional, serious Christian – and to give grace in differing opinions to those who differ with them on this issue. While I think it is a secondary issue (at least, for the sake of ACNA and the whole of the AC, I hope it is!), I fully understand it is an incredibly important secondary issue, one around which one can be made to feel oppressed. And, yes, I have watched this topic induce flame-throwers to be brought out over on SFiF before…. 🙂
Chris Taylor (#39) does a great job of articulating the position I hold (except that I don’t think Sarah1 = Sarah = Sarah Hey, FWIW) – the fine-line-walking that expresses the fullness of God – sacramental/liturgical, evangelical and charismatic – requires balance. Any time I try to walk a fine line, I tend to over-balance one way, then sway the other, trying to compensate. It is not an easy straight-down-the line thing. And this, because of our humanity, is the path Anglicanism must take. I simply advocate for giving grace to our brothers and sisters, even as we debate/argue/fight.
An addendum: when I was growing up, my mother used to say of Episcopalians (which we were at that time): “Lean to the left, lean to the right; stand up, sit down, FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT!” 🙂
Hey folks — Sarah1 is the same as Sarah . . . there was some reason last month why I had to switch my screen name [and I can’t recall why] from Sarah to Sarah1.
RE: “My reading of Anglican history is that both the Catholic and Evangelical wings of Anglicanism have a very good idea what the other side thinks and have understood it (and fought over it!) for about 500 years now.”
My reading of the Anglican present is that the average evangelical Anglican, and many who are above average as well, [i]hasn’t a clue[/i] about AngloCatholic theology nor about Anglican history, the conflicts with the 39 Articles, Newman, the Elizabethan Settlement, or much else concerning the via media. But . . . we hang out with different people and since our reading of the present is utterly subjective without a nice large-sampled quantitative survey of the audience, it’s merely so much assertions thrown against the wind.
RE: “At least you didn’t try it over at SF…hahaha.”
Well, nobody who is *really* opposed to WO over at SF would have tried it under a thread titled “New Anglicans split on women.”
To be a [i]legitimate[/i] person opposed to WO over at SF, you must denounce WO on threads titled “Hezbollah and Hamas: The Sudanese Connection” or “What about Other Religions” or “Andrew Goddard (Fulcrum) on the launch of the FCA.”
Because as we all know . . . positively [i]everything[/i] relates, ultimately, to WO.
And if you as an anti-WO person can’t figure out a way to introduce the topic on other random threads about Jamaica, tennis, dogs, the Sudan, vestments, child abuse, or Mugabe then you’re just a pretender, frankly.
; > )
Re: #39,
Hegelian Christianity? Why not, for those who like that sort of thing?
But I don’t know why those who claim to claim to be “Catholic Anglicans” should have this penchant for Rome and especially the Orthodox to “acknowledge” them as such — a penchant that didn’t begin with the Oxford Movement, but which some of the Caroline Divines shared as well. There are “Evangelical Catholic” Lutherans (as they call themselves) who vaunt Lutheranism as “the Catholic Faith” and go on to say that “church polity” is an adiaphoron, and that presbyters = bishops. Rome and the Orthodox neither can nor will ever “acknowledge” this, and most Evangelical Catholic Lutherans couldn’t care less about this.
If a party or faction of Anglicans want to call themselves “Catholic” and (analogously to the EC Lutheran attitude with regard to Rome and Orthodoxy on Church Order) say that “we are the kind of Catholics that can live in a church that contains opposing beliefs on matters that ‘other Catholics’ regard as fundamental, and we reject the beliefs of those ‘other Catholics’ that ‘true Catholics’ cannot and ought not remain members of a body that ’embraces and celebrates’ these contradictions,” well, fine and good, but don’t expect these “other Catholics” to regard this as anything “recognizably Catholic.” But this “recognition” is what “Catholic Anglicans” have sought for centuries from the Orthodox or Rome, or both.
I think it will take more than “Hegelian Christianity” to square this circle — just as I think there already is a constituency of “Hegelian ‘Catholic’ Christians” flourishing in world Anglicanism. They are called “Affirming Catholics,” in America “Affirming Anglican Catholics.” I am intrigued by the suggestion (not made above in #39, but clearly implicit in it) that ACNA should have its own constituency of Not-Quite-So-Affirming Affrrming Catholics in its own, evidently ample, bosom.
I am ashamed; I must now admit how very wrong I was – Sarah1 is, clearly, Sarah. I don’t admit this because she said it was so, but because the trademark ;>) is there.
Holy schlamoley, Sarah1, that was wickedly funny. Did you by chance write the Hangover? And count me as one of your “average evangelical Anglicans” because I haven’t a clue about any of those things you described.
Hey, y’all, if you’re willing to put the time into really wrestling with the WO issue, I highly recommend the Rev’d Dr Rod Whitacre’s essay, “Women, Ordination and the Bible”, which you can find on Trinity School for Ministry’s site at http://www.tsm.edu/Academics/Faculty/Rodney_Whitacre.html
I was opposed to WO early on, then totally swung the other way, then after ordination and struggling with it for some time, I read this article and was thoroughly convinced that the ord. of women is just plain wrong. (Sorry to offend.) It also became clear to me that a church just cannot be pro-OW and anti-same-sex blessing/ordination. I am hopeful that ACNA will move closer to orthodoxy through the witness of whole dioceses like Ft Worth, Quincy and San Joaquin, as well as Forward in Faith. For as long as it clings to OW, it cannot legitimately call itself orthodox, or so said Martin Luther.
Sarah is also correct that the hardcore on this issue is VERY hardcore and can’t see beyond it. This is one reason I am doubtful that most of the Continuum will ever make its way into ACNA — with the exception of APA. If +Grundorf had his way they’d be there already, but he’s way ahead of many in his jurisdiction. APA is the only jurisdiction in the Continuum that shows any sign of recognizing the historic renewal of Anglicanism underway globally. That’s probably because just as there are some evangelicals who ultimately cannot abide the Catholic face of Anglicanism, there are also Anglo-Catholics who cannot abide the Reformed face of Anglicanism.
What both extremes fail to see is that without the other side, you don’t have authentic Anglicanism. And, if you don’t have authentic Anglicanism, why not just be either a RC or a Presbyterian? Anglicanism exists only when the tension between genuinely Reformed and genuinely Catholic exists. Sarah, I also agree with you that the rank-and-file evangelical or Anglo-Catholic probably doesn’t “get” the theology of the other side, but that was probably always the case. The theologically serious on both sides do get it and they always have. When those folks find ways to play nicely in the same sandbox, Anglicanism is at its very best. When they don’t you have, well, a nasty fight in the sandbox, and our Reformed, RC, and Orthodox cousins shake their heads and usually declare Anglicanism hopeless. They’re wrong, I think, which is why they remain intrigued by Anglicans. All of our cousins are facing the same challenges and threats to the historic Gospel message that we are facing, and I think they’re watching the Anglican renewal with special interest. It was hugely significant that the OCA Metropolitan addressed the ACNA founding assembly last week. This reflects an Orthodox interest in Anglicanism that goes back to the foundation of Anglicanism, and the interest has always been mutual — just ask Rowan Williams!
Sorry, “never” at the beginning of line 2 in my previous post should have read EVER.
RE: Sarah: “My reading of the Anglican present is that the average evangelical Anglican, and many who are above average as well, hasn’t a clue about AngloCatholic theology nor about Anglican history, the conflicts with the 39 Articles, Newman, the Elizabethan Settlement, or much else concerning the via media.” I agree, and I would add to that the writings of the early Church Fathers. As someone who came in from a vague liberal Protestant background, I was astounded when I first began reading excerpts from the Church Fathers and found that their devotion to Scripture exceeds that of many modern-day evangelicals. And then I found out that icons and a reverence for the consecrated bread of the eucharist were also extremely early, in coexistence with the generations who followed the Apostles and who were led by the Holy Spirit in identifying and canonizing the Scriptures. Down went my whole very Protestant worldview, and it never returned to the same form.
Looking back on my Episcopal upbringing and being able to compare it to my days at a Jesuit Prepschool (which overlaped my days as an Epsicopal Acolyte) and my more resent experiences as a Methodist – I see that my former Episcopal parish (low church as in no incense but Rite I Communion service (no Rite II) combined with morning prayer services) was a great blend between Catholocism and Protestantism. I viewed my Church it as the joke gos as Catholic lite – but I have always found Calvinism to be a tad bit extreme. My guess is that Methodism is a good compromise between Baptist/Presbyterian and Anglicanism.
I see one real challenge for the ACNA is how the new Anglicanism will blend (assuming that it does blend). I have never been to what I would consider an “evangelical” Anglican church. Are there Anglican Churches that are more protestant then Methodist Churches now? Because of the Prayer Book I would find it hard for a parish/congregation to achieve that.
I think that Chris Taylor may be correct about the hardcore continiuum – having said that I wonder how hard core is the continuum since most of the folks who founded those churches are now 30 years older. If I were a Bishop in the continuum – I think I would 1) declare victory in that large numbers of Epsicopalians are filing out of TEC; 2) join ACNA as a diocese with my flock in order to have a seat at the table; and 3) encourage my Priests to offer refuge to any Anglo-Catholic parish or segment thereof thinking of breaking out of TEC – from what I have seen on the websites many of the continuum churches are either shrinking or growing with newer departures from TEC – but most likely have surplus worship space.
Chips, #50, trust me, they’re diehards in the Continuum — just as convinced today as they were in 1977. Many use canes, carry oxygen bottles, are on walkers, etc., but they haven’t given up “the faith” about WO. IF they catch even the slightest sent of a woman deacon they go nuts. Many can’t even stand the thought of a woman reading the epistle or being an acolyte! It doesn’t phase them in the least that their movement never grew (except for APA). They can’t join ACNA as a diocese because they are so splintered that none of them (except APA and possibly ACA) are large enough to qualify as a diocese in ACNA. That means that their bishops would no longer be bishops — you can see the obvious ego problem there! Visit any REC parish to be assured of getting the most Protestant expression of Anglicanism. I think you’ll find an REC service vastly more Protestant in the classical sense than many many Methodist churches (especially on either the East or West Coast).
Katherine, #48, another very incisive comment. Tom Oden has had much the same experience. See:
http://www.amazon.com/Rebirth-Orthodoxy-Signs-Life-Christianity/dp/006009785X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246641447&sr=8-1
My sense is that Hauerwas has too.
Chips, in answer to your question whether Anglicans can be more protestant than Methodists, a lot of evangelical and charismatic parishes have all but jettisoned the ’79 Prayer Book, and here in Canada the ’85 Book of Alt. Services, which is a step further away from orthodoxy than it’s mother the ’79 BCP. So worship in those parishes is most likely solid biblically and theologically, but liturgically quite loose. As for members of the Continuum joining ACNA, most of them will not compromise nearly as much as Forward in Faith did in order to be an ACNA partner. One suspects that within the Continuum there is a lot of power politics going on, what with so many bishops and jurisdictions. They’re having a heck of a time to draw together themselves, let alone any talk of joining ACNA. Besides all that, a lot of members of the Continuum, and very many clergy included, are very bitter toward the Anglican Communion, which seems to be a very large part of their general attitude. That has been the #1 factor in deterring me from considering joining them.
Chris Taylor (#51). You said: “Visit any REC parish to be assured of getting the most Protestant expression of Anglicanism. I think you’ll find an REC service vastly more Protestant in the classical sense than many many Methodist churches (especially on either the East or West Coast).”
Um, you gotta be kidding, right? We are no longer the “Presbyterians with a prayer book” of old. I know of parishes whose priests (yep, with the exception of a few holdouts in the Philly area, we call them priests NOT presbyters) wear chausables, swing the incense and genuflect at the appropriate points. Also, lots of stations of the cross, crosses with the corpus, calling the pastor “father”, etc. The REC prayer book of 1934 and following was very protestant but our new (2006) prayer book is basically the 1928 and includes both 1928 and 1662 communion services.
We have one bishop who has stated (only partially tongue in cheek) that it is impossible to confect the sacrament of Holy Communion in the absence of incense.
There are some pockets (mostly in and around Philly as well as in Canada) where the REC is still “extremely low church” but most REC parishes are “mid-church and up.”
We regularly have joint services with other REC and APA parishes and, with the exception of who bows when during the creed (REC usually bows at the name of Christ and APA usually bows at “he came down from heaven and was made man”) it is almost impossible to tell who is REC and who is APA. (We wear lapel pins-GRIN).
In fact, we are becoming so much alike that some of the holdouts even started a website called “no way APA”.
So again, if you want protestantized Anglicanism, go to AMiA or some CANA churches. You probably won’t (except in Philly) find it in the REC.
recchip, Thanks for the update. I’m close enough to Philly I guess to have the old school REC (black preaching robes and trays of little thimble cups with grape juice at “The Lord’s Supper” in my neighborhood. Guess this shows you can’t depend on anything staying the same in the Anglican world! I knew there was a significant Anglo-Catholic movement in REC, but I didn’t realize it had gone as far as you describe. Great new BCP by the way, sort of a compendium of great Anglican BCP material since 1662, and TOTALLY different from the older REC prayer books I’ve seen (which revised even the Apostle’s Creed and the 39 Articles!). Can’t imagine what Bishop Cummins would have made of all these changes, but it’s great to have the REC back in the global Anglican mainstream — hope we can get the APA in too!