But how that passion will relate to women’s rights within the church remains to be seen.
Although Minns told those assembled that “there is no person outside the reach of God’s love,” he also informed them that, “At this time the Church of Nigeria, to which we owe canonical obedience, has no provision for the ordination of women, although there has been acceptance of women in the order of deacons.”
The Episcopal Church has allowed for the ordination of women since its 1976 General Convention but Minns said that CANA, which currently numbers about 60 congregations with over 100 clergy in 20 states with a total average Sunday attendance of approximately 8,600 ”“ larger than 70 percent of the dioceses in the Episcopal Church ”“ is currently split on the issue.
The four new bishops consecrated on Sunday were all male.
“I am fully aware that this is a topic of concern for many clergy and congregations throughout CANA and one that produces intense reactions,” Minns said Thursday.
I never thought the belief in an all male priesthood was an issue of denying a womans’ right. I did not think that anyone had a right to be a priest. Is this understanding correct?
[blockquote]…fulfill our commitment to the full participation of women, in the life and leadership of the church.[/blockquote]
Where have I heard this language before… not referring to women, though?
Sounds right to me, Paula.
Recently, the civil and women’s rights movements have influenced every aspect of society, so that we are likely to, unreflectively, think of Holy Orders as no different that being a trash collector.
That is, if everyone has the right, regardless of personal circumstance, to be a trash collector, then everyone has the right to be under Holy Orders.
As my wife often reminds me, the real question is who are women uniquely called to be in the church? What roles are they uniquely called to fulfill? Even under the larger role of teacher, how are women uniquely called to teach? Who are they called to teach? When are they called to teach?
Answers to these questions are clearly found in the examples of Holy women of God in Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition. Telling their stories and holding them up as examples will encourage a new generation of Holy mothers, daughters and sisters to serve the church in ways men cannot. Without these examples and encouragement we lose one way that the Holy Spirit seeks to work through women for the sanctification of His people and His church.
http://idrathernotsay123.wordpress.com/2007/12/11/minns-to-ccp-my-way-or-the-highway/
[blockquote] “He informed the audience that he has appointed a task force to address the two “integrities†of the issue … We will keep our promise to honor both integrities within CANA and fulfill our commitment to the full participation of women, in the life and leadership of the church.We will do so in such a manner that both those who are unable to support the ordination of women and those who embrace it will know that their position has been honored,†he stated.[/blockquote] Normally I think +Minns is one of the better orators in this mess, however I fear he has begun channeling ++Frank Tracy Griswold :bug:
When it comes to women’s ordination, ECUSA was sold a false bill of goods in the 1970’s. It was presented as a “woman’s right.” The truth of the matter is that in the Kingdom of Heaven neither women nor men have any rights whatsoever. We are blessed with what God choses to give us – far more than we deserve or warrant! The priesthood is a calling, not a riight. And the Church Catholic has been very clear that women are not called to serve in that manner. A priest is an icon of the great High Priest who has passed through the heavens and is seated at the right hand of God. Despite the polically correct folks, our Great High Priest is not bisexual nor femaile but male. A woman can not serve as a icon of the Great High Priest any more than I, as a male, could serve as an icon of the Blessed Virgin Mary. But then again, the Episcopal Church has swapped its catholic heritage for a bowl of rancid soup. This is just one example of how far ECUSA has pulled itself up by its roots and settled for current political correctness.
As I said at IRNS’ place:
There’s one thing that’s indisputable: the validity of orders of male priests is not questioned by anyone; the validity of orders of female priests is questioned by many. The former is inherently unifying; the latter is inherently divisive.
The only way I can explain the motivation of those that pursue the divisive path anyway is that they have a secular agenda that trumps all else, just as Integrity, etc. have a secular agenda that trumps all else. As this philosophy has proven to be highly corrosive to even a two-hundred-year-old, once-mainline ecclesial institution, it seems positively reckless to inject it into a newborn organization that hasn’t matured to the point of putting a parish listing on its website.
Given the multiplicity of jurisdictions that have moved into North America, why don’t people who accept women priests affiliate with Kenya or Uganda (both of which have long had women clergy), rather than expect a province like Nigeria, Rwanda, or Southern Cone that rejects women presbyters to apply a different rule to its North American congregations than it does at home? Conversely, why would anyone who rejects women’s ordination affiliate with Kenya, Uganda, or any of the majority of other Anglican provinces that ordain women? If someone holds that the practice has impaired the validity of Holy Orders within TEC, how has it not had the same effect in most of the rest of the Anglican Communion?
[blockquote] “We will do so in such a manner that both those who are unable to support the ordination of women and those who embrace it will know that their position has been honored,†he stated.[/blockquote]
How Anglican of him. Too bad they couldn’t see fit to take the same road regarding tolerance of human sexuality. Oh, well. Welcome to the world of pick and choose morality.
In the past there have been women clergy at churches now affiliated with CANA (Pittsburgh’s canon missioner, Mary Hays, comes to mind). When the vote was taken were there no women clergy at any of the parishes involved?
Short of asking all the women clergy in the CCP (mostly ACN dioceses, I presume) not to exercise their orders for the sake of unity, I’m unclear what these women – or their judicatories – are expected to do. Incidentally, I think I know some who might even be willing to do that, if so requested.
Grandmother them out. This sillyness must stop. If we truly confess the Nicene Creed (one holy, catholic, and apostolic) and truly mean it, then women’s ordination is a no go. It has never been universally accepted, but rather, universally denied. It doesn’t matter if the entire Anglican Communion came to a ‘common mind’ of acceptance of this: Rome and Constantinople say: no!
More importantly, the Scriptures (interpreted in any catholic way, of course) say no. Sacramentally, one must redefine what the words ‘priest’ or ‘deacon’ or ‘bishop’ mean. It would be like me wanting to become a nun or abbess. It’s absurd.
As Mascall said, there is a difference between ‘the Anglican tradition’ and the ‘Anglican appeal to Tradition.’ Let’s keep this in mind, be pastoral, and grandmother them out.
Because Holy Orders are the result of both personal and community calling–it seems to me that the important thing here is for the community (CANA through its representative decision making process) to make the decision concerning WO out of their own sense of the Holy Spirit’s prompting, so that WO is not just forced on the whole community by the inisistence of a few, but if it comes, it comes from prayerful discernment of the whole community.
The tyranny of the minority has caused the downfall of the Episcopal Church. It would be foolish to begin where TEC finished…that way of doing things is what we all just have left.
I simply don’t understand how you back up the adiaphora train to a station it has already left and expect everyone to sing kumbayah when it gets there.
Peace from an alleged ignoramous,
Since this is a touchy subject I want to preface that this comment is written in a peaceful conversational manner-thanks:
I think some clarity may help here….while the Minns language may seem similar to the language of 815 in style, isn’t it a separate issue?
My understanding is that reasserters argue that gay marriage and ordination are not acceptable because scripture specifically states opposition to homosexual acts.
But is there any specific scriptural statement against women being priests?
I am concerned that we address the woman’s ordination separately from gay ordination and avoid the trap of lumping things together because that approach can be distracting and not fair to the parties involved.
Separately, I understand that Jesus was a man, but there are many qualities that Jesus had that one will not find in any priest: His father was a carpenter, he was from the line of David, from the tribe of Judah and born in Bethlehem. Why is it that these and other attributes are not required in our priests but gender is? Scripture is very specific about this, but not gender, it seems.
[blockquote] Why is it that these and other attributes are not required in our priests but gender is? [/blockquote]
I believe it’s because men have always been afraid of sharing power with women and feel threatened by them. The argument that Rome says so is too weak, IMO. Rome rarely, if ever, admits that they’re wrong. What will you say when they finally claim Mary is a co-redemptrix? At THAT point will you be happy with women priests?
#14 Jackson, if I had access to my blog archives, I could give an answer to your very sincere and pertinent question. I’ll see if I can dig them up through an alternative source, but must make dinner for my family. Stay tuned.
#14 Jackson:
Trying to remain sensitive to the touchiness, you might want to websearch some of the RC scholarship on the issue.
I asked this question on Stand Firm. I do not know what is taught about the priesthood in the Episcopal Church. Does the priest act as Alter Christ as in the Catholic church? If he does can a church change its understanding of the nature of the priesthood without changing its understanding of the nature of Christ ?
I am truly curious as to what the range of opinion is on this matter.
The canons of the Anglican Province of Nigeria are a worthwhile read. Those of you who joined CANA and may be Masons will also be looking for a new home soon. You belong to a “secret organization” which is prohibited as well.
Miserable Sinner: Thanks for the note. I did some searching around and came to EWTN website (FYI for readers – EWTN is a very conservative RC TV network). Their article on the matter at http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/WHYWOMEN.TXT states the following quote from a RC theologian nun supporting the RC approach ” Sister Butler acknowledges that this requirement is not spelled out directly in the Bible, “as if Scripture, as if Jesus, said, ‘I don’t want any women to be priests.’ “”
Is it purely an argument from tradition? For me, that does not disqualify it, but knowing that does help the debate/conversation. – Thanks
I would sure rather hear the gospel and receive the sacraments from a woman priest who shares orthodox Catholic faith than listen to the heterodox ramblings of a man who does not. Our communion is in process of determining the will of God on this matter, and I am content to follow the lead of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the majority of the Lambeth bishops. If orthodox Anglican provinces like Kenya and Uganda can accept women as priests, who am I to object. My experience is the Episcopal Church is that there are now a number of good, orthodox, women who are priests first. There are also some militant feminists – and some really strange men clergy.
[blockquote]Too bad they couldn’t see fit to take the same road regarding tolerance of human sexuality. [/blockquote]
The issue isn’t sexuality, but behavior. That is so well known by now that one can only conclude your blurt is dishonest.
Hi Jackson,
I am afraid I’m not able to respond in any depth at the moment, but there have been in depth discussions surrounding this issue at both Stand Firm and Anglican Mainstream.
Briefly, there are two ways (from a conservative point of view) to come at this: Scripture and Tradition.
Scripture does address this, but from a governmental (rather than sacramental) point of view– This is the language of presbyters et al. From an evangelical perspective, I don’t see any way around this.
Tradition also addresses this but from from a (primarily) sacramental (rather than governmental) point of view– this is the language of the sacerdotal ministry of the Church. As a Catholic, I don’t see any way around this.
The thing to keep in mind is, presbyter and priest are on and the same thing. Scripture addresses the priesthood on the basis of its governmental and teaching role within the Church; Tradition addresses it on the basis of its sacramental role within the Church (with particular ontological implications).
Scripture, Tradition and the Church Catholic (in all her expressions) make for a pretty strong three-fold cord.
Lastly, you ask that we keep the two issues (same-sex relations and W.O.) separate. The difficulty is, for many of us, they are not. The same methodology that is used to redefine Church teaching regarding homosexual activity is used to redefine the priesthood. Many of us would even see one as being a natural epistemological consequence of the other. I understand that this is a difficult topic, but I’m tired of Anglican fudge in all of its flavors, and I think this is something that needs to be dealt with sooner rather than later.
Blessings,
fs
Re TomRightmyer’s (21), “I would sure rather hear the gospel and receive the sacraments from a woman priest who shares orthodox Catholic faith:…” isn’t this oxymoronic? What woman who held orthodox Catholic faith would be a priest? Hasn’t God always been clear on this matter? Please help me to better understand your position.
for the community (CANA through its representative decision making process) to make the decision concerning WO out of their own sense of the Holy Spirit’s prompting
I have always found this a very disturbing ‘litmus test’ for what is ‘True.’ It seems to me, to be a bit reductionist, that the Holy Spirit has alot of trouble making up its mind. I’m not trying to be pithy. It just seems that so many people are ‘led by the Spirit’ to so many conflicting things. Then we say that the things they are led to must be confirmed in Scripture and the Church – but whose interpretation and which Church?
#25 (Brian from T19),
I agree. I believe that the Spirit leads, but only in line with what he has already revealed. An awful lot of strange things have been placed on the Holy Spirit’s doormat lately, including the “new thing”. And I suppose that is another linkage between the two.
Paula et al – The iconic role of the priest as the representative of Christ in the mass, the catholic view, does not resonate with many of the Reasserters who hold Reformed/Calvinist beliefs. Those of them who are against women priests hold that position based on the headship principle (women should not be in positions of authority over men) that is held be them and other conservative Protestants such as the LCMS and some Baptist groups.
As I have mentioned in the past, I am agnostic on the issue. We have a wonderful female Canon now, Heidi Kinner, and I commed her sermons to all of you; they can be found at adventbirmingham.org. Her preaching is far better preaching than that of at least 95% of the male clergy in ECUSA (probably more like 98%). But if this is the one issue that will threaten a realigned church, then I am OK without female clergy. Then again, I am not female, not a member of the clergy and not at risk for being shut out from what I believe to have been my calling in service to His Kingdom.
Doug, #19, what person who has an understanding of the Gospel would even think to be a Mason? It is a semi-gnostic godless and nearly satanic organization. I would hope all Anglican Provinces that aren’t bowing to Molech and to whatever god they worshipped in Sodom prohibit being a Mason.
Anyone scared of that prohibition has no business leaving TEC.
I’m very pleased that Martyn Minns is staking out a position and being clear about the challenges and degree of difficulty that all of this entails. Better for him to be up-front and honest, then lie like a rug like so many Episcopal leaders.
I would like to offer a slightly different take. I am intentionally NOT addressing the Scriptural or Traditional argument surrounding the soundness of women’s ordination because they have already been addressed. I have a huge issue with the “right” to ordination.
Another issue I have is with the clericalizing of the church. That is, if all who feel a call to ministry (which ought to be ALL Christians) are told they must be ordained priests what is left of the Church? Is women’s ordination among the “mere/credal Christians” really just a sympton of bad teaching and bad structure where those vested with authority encourage women who want to minister to go ahead and get ordained? Actually, this isn’t just a question. I’ve seen it happen in the diocese where I was ordained- Dallas.
I think that Scripture and Tradition are fairly clear on women’s ordination. I start with that because it is important to state my beginning point (but I will give no description as to why as per my earlier statement).
Ok…
My hypothesis is that if the Church encouraged an active and vibrant ministry of all faithful Christians. And if the Church structurally provided such opportunities. And taught about the ministry of the faithful. Then, I propose, orthodox women would not feel a “call” to the priesthood because they have the opportunity to fully live out their call to ministry. Thus, if women truly felt called to serve Christ and minister in Jesus’ name, then they would not want to be in the current ordered ministry. This is because the women in my hypothetical proposal would have the opportunity to live into a fruitful ministry, they would be given good teaching about the universality of the Church, and they would not want to commit the sin against charity caused by being ordained when so many traditional faithful Christians are convinced about the biblical and traditional arguments.
I further propose that if the Church re-instituted the “Deaconess” that this would be one excellent way to structurally provide opportunity for women called to be ministers, and whom a community wants to recognize as having a special form of ministry, but who have mistakenly thought (or been led to think) that this call was to the sacred order of priests or deacons. Of course, I’m far too young to have ever met anyone ordained a deaconess but I have met a number of “mere/ credal Christian” women in ordered ministry who might have taken a different path… like that of the deaconess… if that was the option available to them.
These are just some thoughts. I offer them because I am concerned about the “two truth” or “two integrity” model that CANA has just provided. I am truly sad that CANA and the Common Cause- which has the opportunity to really make some wonderful changes bringing us back to vibrant, evangelistic, and traditional form of Christianity- seem to have dropped the ball.
Pax.
I think Martyn needs to start cracking heads and drive out the malcontents. They have left the sick TEC and sought refuge in Nineria. Now some think they can continue the same sickness that is destroying TEC?
It doesn’t matter what the issue is. They are joining Nigeria. If they don’t like the situation there, go somewhere else. The answer is so obvious that Dale Rye and I are both in agreement about the path seceeders should take.
oops, I did NOT mean to spell Nigeria as Nineria. My bad!
Her preaching is far better preaching than that of at least 95% of the male clergy in ECUSA (probably more like 98%).
What are the implications of women clergy if it is indeed a violation of Scripture and Tradition? +Minns appears to be arguing that both sides of the argument have integrity. However, if we assume that ordination to the priesthood is a violation of Scripture and Tradition, then those women priests and believers in WO are openly rejecting Scripture and Tradition. What of those women who claim to have been called to be ordained? Are they being deceived or simply serving their own desires? Either way they are perpetrating a wrong against God.
“I think Martyn needs to start cracking heads and drive out the malcontents”
I agree on the logic of pairing U.S. congregations with congenial overseas dioceses (and I’ve heard the late Bp. Jecko helped do so).
But isn’t CANA supposed to be an interim device—sort of an ark to help ferry faithful Anglicans from ECUSA to a new, orthodox U.S. province? CANA member church may be obliged to follow Church of Nigeria rules. But that’s no reason to act like a heartless disciplinarian. Bp. Martyn knows better than to be a martinet.
But that’s no reason to act like a heartless disciplinarian. Bp. Martyn knows better than to be a martinet.
But he is under the authority of ++Akinola. The Nigerian system works differently than TEC so he must answer to the canons of the Church of Nigeria.
#14: Scriptural reference: Corinthians 14:34 is harshly on-point; general evidence would be all-male levitical priesthood. Also Romans refers to deaconess Phebe, which could be rendered simply as her being in the ministry of the church; or rendered as deaconess with the appropriate understanding (certainly seen the early church and confirmed at Nicea) that the woman remains a lay person and receives no ordination. Also worth noting deacons have no power to consecrate. More nuanced arguments might be found in the logical connection between an all-male episcopacy and the priestly ordination rite which prays that the man being ordained may be worthy of higher things (ie, the office of bishop).
#15: Claiming Mary as co-redemptrix would not open any door for WO in RCC. The title co-redemptrix does not imply equality with Christ, simply that Mary participates in our redemption with Christ in a highly visible way. Properly understood, Christ loses no honor or uniqueness by the doctrine. Certainly the doctrine could be abused in practice.
Brian [#36]: “Knocking heads” refers to process.
TWilson
Scriptural reference: In Romans 16:7, Paul praises a woman named Junia as “outstanding among the apostles.” Despite the modern mistranslation of her name as masculine “Junias” or “Junius,” no commentator prior to the 13th century questioned that this apostle was a woman. For example, John Chrysostom, whose writings often express misogyny, wrote of Romans 16:7, “O how great is the devotion of this woman that she should be counted worthy of the appellation of apostle!” This unanimity of testimony over a millennium is particularly striking since it remained during a long period of eroding toleration of women’s ministries in the medieval church. The reason for the witness is simple: all the ancient Greek and Latin manuscripts commending the outstanding apostles in Romans 16:7 read either “Junia” or “Julia”, both feminine forms.
The NRSV corrects the mistranslation and restores the feminine Junia.
KGL (#31),
You mentioned that you have never met a Deaconess. You mentioned that you were in Dallas. If so, just pop on down to Houston and see Deaconess Johnson at St. Matthias Cathedral of the Reformed Episcopal Church. We have had deaconesses for some years and our closest CCP partner, the Anglican Province of America does as well.
Here is a “description” of the Deaconess from St. Matthias Website.
Deaconess Annette Johnson assists Father Grote in the ministry of the Church, especially with women and children, under the supervision of the Bishop. She holds a degree in Education with certifications in Reading and Learning Disabilities. Her graduate work has been in the areas of Education Diagnostics and Theology. She was set apart as a Deaconess on the Feast of St. Bridgid (Bride), January 31, 1993.
A Deaconess is ‘set apart’ but not an ordained office of ministry in the same respect as Deacons, Presbyters, and Bishops. These offices are reserved for men according to Holy Scripture. However, the ministry of Deaconess is an ancient and useful ministry for women.
But that’s no reason to act like a heartless disciplinarian.
Would you say that to Moses? 🙂
American self-obsession is one of the factors that had corrupted the Episcopal Church. People have to know that that attitude has to be left behind. I don’t care whether the communication is delivered hard or soft, but my observation of human nature tells me that self-centeredness creates thick heads and thick heads require strong sticks.
#29 Christopher; Wait a minute! I have known fundamentalist Baptist Ministers and Orthodox Jewish Rabbis who are masons – a fraternity, not a religion. It is really not so secret anymore. Its so called secrets are very widely published. However, I do believe that one’s money, time and effort are better spent in support of a Christian church.
[blockquote]Because Holy Orders are the result of both personal and community calling–it seems to me that the important thing here is for the community (CANA through its representative decision making process) to make the decision concerning WO out of their own sense of the Holy Spirit’s prompting, so that WO is not just forced on the whole community by the inisistence of a few, but if it comes, it comes from prayerful discernment of the whole community[/blockquote]
“Community” indeed. Don’t forget this community is 2000 years old, folks and is comprised of an enormous, dwarfing majority of those who would see WO as the innovation that it is. My message to all CCP folks out there is, “just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.” Choose unity on this one. This particular innovation isn’t worth it.
Question: Let’s say CANA is a man and FIFNA is a woman (stay with me) who get married and become Mr and Mrs Common Cause.
In their first year of marriage, Mr. Common Cause decides it’s high time he got the motorcycle he always wanted. Mrs CC on the other hand thinks getting a motorcycle will result in Mr CC’s premature death or dismemberment and pleads with him to refrain (besides, what will the neighbors think!?).
There’s nothing in the Bible about getting a motorcycle, right? What would you hope Mr CC does for the sake of that marriage? What would you expect to happen if Mr CC goes ahead, despite the protestations of his partner?
Try answering this question pretending you are:
1) the marriage counselor
2) Mr CC’s doctor
3) Mr CC’s car insurance rep ; – )
This “living into the tension” and “two integrities” style rhetoric about WO needs to go. We’ve all had enough of that to last a lifetime, even if legitimate in some circumstances. Somebody kick the jukebox, time for a new song.
Boy, the Romans were right. Judging from the acerbic responses to WO the Anglican church here in America is striving to burst at the seams. You people who are against WO, should Kenya and the other provinces be kicked out of the communion? Why can’t those who are for WO have their own bishops and those who aren’t have theirs? Do we have to tear each other to pieces. How far will you go in devouring each others? I’m a reasserter, but if this is the fruit of reassertion, I wonder if it is of God.
43–“Community†indeed. Don’t forget this community is 2000 years old…in part my point–if not that, then at least a Communion Counciliar decision.
It would be commendable to do a little research and study on WO before blindly arguing. To this end the following is offered:
1. “Ordaining Women as Deacons”, A reappraisal of the Anglican Mission in America’s Policy. A 60 page pro&con;report which can be found on the AMiA website: http://www.theamia.org. there is a full, comprehensive bibliography included including research and practice of the early church Fathers and current commentary by leading theologians.
This is must reading to be fully informed.
#36 Brian from T19 says:
If this statement — from +Minns’ Pastoral Call — is correct, then ++Akinola has given them at least some leeway:
“At this time the Church of Nigeria, to which we owe canonical obedience, has no provision for the ordination of women although there has been acceptance of women in the order of deacons. At their most recent gathering the Church of Nigeria’s General Synod tabled discussion about ordination of women to a future date. Archbishop Peter Akinola has stated that while he supports this action he recognizes that there needs to be freedom for CANA to take a different direction because of its North American context.”
[i]should Kenya and the other provinces be kicked out of the communion?[/i]
The ordination of women is wrong. It’s not that it is inadvisable, or even prohibited; it is that it is impossible. Provinces like Kenya (and Canterbury and York, for that matter) can purport to “ordain” women all they like, but that does not, in actuality, confer the Apostolic priesthood on women. It cannot be done.
It’s not that Kenya, etc, should be “kicked out.” But those who understand and hold to the orthodox position on this matter should not, ultimately, be in communion with those who will not. Provinces which “ordain” women should be invited to repent of this insupportable innovation, and be given time to do so (call it a period of “reception” of the idea of repentance, if you like). But if they will not repent, communion must be broken. You may call that “being kicked out” or “going into schism” depending on your point of view.
It’s a bit like the eighth century. The iconoclasts were in the ascendant for a time (several decades, if I recall correctly); but in the end they were recognized as the heretics that they were. Just because WO has been around for 30 years doesn’t mean it’s set in stone. Thirty years is the blink of an eye in Church history.
I really don’t want to be difficult, but why would people—like some of those above—who see women’s ordination as an issue on which the Gospel stands or falls (whether because they see it as incompatible with Scripture or with tradition) want to belong to a Communion that has quite clearly regarded the issue as adiaphora?
This is not just a matter of the explicit declaration of all the Instruments of Communion, but of the actual conduct of the member churches. Virtually every year since the “period of reception” began with Hong Kong in the 1970s, another Anglican church has begun to ordain women presbyters. These provinces are now the majority. Among the minority, all but a handful now ordain women, not to a lay order of deaconesses, but as deacons alongside men within the full Threefold (lesser) Sacrament of Orders.
To the best of my knowledge, there is not a single province that has undertaken a “period of reception” that has abandoned it. Not a single province has broken communion with another over this issue.
A substantial minority (composed largely of non-Western provinces) have no formal bar to women bishops, and women have actually been elected bishop in three provinces and one extra-provincial diocese. Several of those bishops participated in the last Lambeth Conference on the same basis as their male colleagues (their husbands even participated in the spouse activities). Not a single Primate or member of the Anglican Consultative Council has argued that the current TEC Presiding Bishop should be excluded from their meetings on the grounds of her sex (her theology is a different question, of course).
There is no observable linkage between women’s ordination and either geography or homosexual rights. One of the most vehemently vocal Global South provinces regarding gays is West Africa, whose current or immediate-past Primate is married to a woman priest. As I have frequently noted, the first women clergy were in Asia, not North America, and two of the first five provinces to ordain women are in Africa (and, now, the US). Uganda under Idi Amin hardly qualified as a hotbed of feminism, and Kenya is not exactly noted for liberal trendiness.
So, again, why would someone who clearly does not regard this question as open to debate (much less a diversity of practice) wish to belong to a communion that clearly, and increasingly, tolerates women in all three orders of ordained ministry? If this issue is serious enough to break communion with TEC, why is it not serious enough to break communion with the other 30+ provinces that recognize women’s ordination to one degree or another?
Well said, Dale!
a fraternity, not a religion
Sorry, Athan-asi-us, it may act like a fraternity at the lower levels but at the upper levels it is a religion. And there are vows taken. Gnostic vows. Catholics are forbidden to belong for very good reason.
Fr. Armstrong, am I misreading your comments, #12, #45, above? I am reading them to say that you now are willing to live within a church body which does not ordain women priests and in particular does not consecrate women bishops. Is this correct, or have I read them backwards?
#49
Because in a Communion that is going through a process of refinement there is a reason to hope that unbiblical practices and shoddy hermeneutics will be laid aside for the sake of faithfulness to the deposit we have received as an expression of the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church.
farstrider
there is a reason to hope
Based on what? Man’s tendency to repent? There is absolutely, positively no way that the AC will go back and stop ordaining women. It simply will not happen. We may wish to put our faith in Hope, but to believe in the literally impossible is simply justification for being comfortable where you are.
Brian from T19,
[blockquote]We may wish to put our faith in Hope but to believe in the literally impossible…[/blockquote]
You don’t suppose you might be putting words in my mouth do you? How about hope in a God who has purified his Church before and can do so again– particularly a Church that is moving into a time of repentance. Nothing is impossible with God.
[blockquote] is simply justification for being comfortable where you are.[/blockquote]
Is that what I’m doing? I am in a church in the New Westminster Diocese that has recently come under the oversight of ++Venables… how comfortable do you think we have been?
And you, did you go with Rome, Geneva or Constantinople?
Sorry Brian.
I shouldn’t have gotten riled. Better to have taken a page from Christopher Hathaway (#41) and simply said:
“Would you say that to St. Athanasius”?
The real problem is the hangers on (sexual deviants, et al.) that believe the ordination of women has some carryover effect that applies to them.
If we could do womens’ ordination without the freaks coming out of the woodwork then all would be fine.
#57 Exactly who do you refer to as sexual deviants or as freaks<?> If you mean those who hear God’s call for gay and lesbian people to serve God’s church, you are quite out of order. Namecalling debases dialogue.
Dale,
… why would people—like some of those above—who see women’s ordination as an issue on which the Gospel stands or falls … want to belong to a Communion that has quite clearly regarded the issue as adiaphora?
It is a good question. I can’t help but think that it was my rather blunt comment that brought forth your question, so let me give my own answer to it.
Why would I want to belong to the Anglican Communion? I don’t want to belong to it, and I haven’t belonged to it since 1984 — though I was a cradle Episcopalian and belonged to ECUSA for 30 years. However, the Episcopal Church is where I received the Gospel and I am thankful for that and so have always loved the Episcopal Church no matter how wayward she has become. That is why I continue to follow and participate in these discussions, even though they are (strictly speaking) none of my business.
I left a long time ago, but there are still faithful Catholic Christians who remain in the Anglican Communion (and even in ECUSA itself). They stay because they still maintain hope for repentance even after thirty years. And they may be right. The Church wandered in the wilderness of heterodoxy and heteropraxis many times in the past, sometimes for decades, and faithful orthodox Christians did not give up calling her to repentance. As I said in my earlier comment, thirty years is an eye-blink in Church history.
One of the reasons, #15, that men have been unwilling to “share” the power is that sharing soon becomes absolute ownership. Sam Adams wrote to his wife, who asked about the rights of women, that he was not about to give himself over to petticoat rule. Most married men have too clear an idea of what the rule is like and how absolute it is.
The feminists have sold the notion that women have been powerless for countless centuries, and this notion has become institutionalized so that, as a matt er of political correctness, no one dares question it. But experience shows that this is wholly false; women have their own source of power and have not hesitated to use it whenever they chose. But their weapons, unlike men’s weapons, are invisible when they injure. Men lose their tempers and use physical force which leaves patent injuries. Women use manipulation, guilt, shame, remorse, ridicule, sexual favors (and all th e power that evolution has given them in this regard) and the withholding thereof – you all know the list – so that men bleed inwardly and no one can see the damage.
What has now happened is that women have kept all the power that time, skill and evolution have given them, and have added many of the powers that men have in t he past held and which have kept the power’s balanced. As they have taken men’s authority, men have correspondingly lost it. For women, it was a win-win situation; for men, it has become a form of castration, a kind of impotence. To see where men now are in America, watch the ads on T V. The nerd, the bungler, the silly adolescent, the hopeless and self-deceived incompetent are now standard fare, and their wives are uniformly pictured and all-knowing and competent, but tolerant of the men’s ineptitude. See the most recent black add on investment and the wife’s thought that her husband couldn’t t each a dog to roll over.
It is precisely this aggregation of power and its use that should keep women out of the priesthood. The war between the sexes is not merely a series of funny cartoons by Thurber. It is very real, permanent, and, however masked, a battle to the bitter end. In recent history, therefore, the rise of homosexuality’s popularity is a cognate of women’s rise to power, for they see homosexuals as unthreatening partners in the acquisition of power. And have they succeeded? Look at TEC again and tell me they have not. Larry
No. 58 – Google “gay pride parade” and see for yourself.
Not recognizing self-evident facts is what REALLY debases dialogue. Norms and mores are pesky buggers, aren’t they?
Ordained women who feel compelled to broker in just about anything on their own coat-tails have yet to realize, apparently, the damage they do to their own ’cause’ as it were…
No. 58, “come as you are and stay as you are” has NEVER been a feature of Christianity. It is of some other religion.
#60, #62, I am an opponent of women’s ordination. However, don’t you think your descriptions are excessive when talking about ordained women and their supporters who are in the “conservative” camp and can say the Nicene Creed with sincerity? Your descriptions may more nearly fit the radical feminist movement, but that doesn’t include that minority of ordained Episcopal women who are among the reasserters. These we hope to persuade based on our common faith in Christ risen. Give the anti-feminist rhetoric a break when not dealing with radical feminists.
Nothing is impossible with God.
I just can’t see that as realistic. It’s nice in principle, but it is not reflective of the reality of the situation.
Is that what I’m doing? I am in a church in the New Westminster Diocese that has recently come under the oversight of ++Venables… how comfortable do you think we have been?
And you, did you go with Rome, Geneva or Constantinople?
Well then you have left the Anglican Communion, which is certainly fine. But your argument is that you are staying in the Anglican Communion in the hope that it will change.
I was born into Geneva, but converted to Canterbury and am comfortable in TEC.
Good question by Dale #49 and a good answer by Chris Jones #59. We have come to a very difficult place with no clean answers as a result of the Communion’s decision to abandon Catholic order.
No 64 I assumed that it was obvious that reasserting women have my full and hearty support! Maybe I’ve miscounted but they seem to be the epitome of a minority however.
It seems to me that CANA is at least initially going with what I believe should be the compromise positions – that Common Cause will accept women as Deacons not Priests or Bishops and that TEC female Priests who come over will be grandfathered – I think this is AMiA’s position. I would hope that if or when Common Cause becomses a geographic jurisdicitonal entitiy as opposed to a non-geographic federation that Bishops will continue to be free to recognize or not existing female orders. Thus, other than +Minns leaving the door open to future ordinations I do not see the problem – the Diocese of Pittsburg would seem to be a bigger hurdle as +Duncun does ordain woman. +Minns stated position appears more conservative. Am I missing something?
The Apostle Paul made this quite simple in his letter to Timothy (1 Tim 2:11-3:7).
11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 [b] And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. [/b]
Paul gives the theological reason:
13 [u] For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15 Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control. [/u]
1 This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
Note: After saying that women are not to teach or have authority over men and giving the theological reason behind it, he then speaks to the qualifications of elders. It’s because of the events surrounding the fall that women CANNOT be elders in the church, period. The is nothing cultural about the fall. Besides, the MAIN duty for women is to be a support and helpmate to their husbands, namely in raising children and managing the household. That’s not a subservient role! Raising the next generation is probably one of the highest callings on earth!!
-Vincent
52–Katherine, I think women’s ordination came into the church not because the church asked for it, but because an aggressive group of women wanted it and forced the matter as a justice issue.
I think the same pressure is on CANA today and all the red lights are going off…
If we are going to have women clergy it should be because the church asked for it, not that a small group demanded it. And when I say the church, I don’t mean just CANA–I mean the whole of the Communion–and then with an eye toward Rome before we acted–all of which is important to discerning the Holy Spirit.
To be clear, I would vote against it…particularly at this point I think it would start CANA off on wrong and distracted footing, evidenced by its prominence in the midst of all the more important things Martyn said in his talk.
Really, it is time to pull the curtain down on this unfortunate thirty year experiment–and if we voted on this by secret ballot I think it would be a landslide against it.
“Women use manipulation, guilt, shame, remorse, ridicule, sexual favors (and all th e power that evolution has given them in this regard) and the withholding thereof – you all know the list – so that men bleed inwardly and no one can see the damage.”
First, I am sorry you find yourself in such a bad personal situation.
The list you give us is the list of the ways powerless people express themselves. It was a list applied to the plebes, the peasants, the workers, black people, and now women. It is how people behave in the presence of an unarguable and insurmountable superior authority. Throughout history groups of people have been kept in their place by the argument that these attributes were part of their nature and so we couldn’t possibly have them in places of authority. And when they DO get in authority it is not the least bit unusual that in the face of their disgruntled and unhelpful new “peers” they overcorrect and we get some kind of reign of terror.
In areas of society where the adjustment has been a little more graceful, you find women blending into the environment and no longer having to develop those coping skills you list. Just as other oppressed classes are no longer as obvious as they once were. Look back in your ancestry and you may even find you had a few peasants in there yourself.
Re ##60 & 62: Your stereotype of women clergy is highly inaccurate, from my experience, even within TEC. I have not noticed that these women as a group are any more reappraising than male clergy as a group (apart from the single issue of female ordination, of course). My reading on the WWW suggests that the same is true in most of the other Western provinces. More importantly, I would bet a very large sum of money that the median theology among clergywomen in the Global South is significantly more reasserting (again, on every other issue) than the median among clergymen in the AMiA or CANA. Feminism is not a significant force in the Two-Thirds World, so their broad acceptance of women clergy cannot be attributed to liberalism. To repeat, the original call for women’s ordination came from a Global South country (China) and was taken up by others as a way of augmenting the Gospel ministry; it is simply not the case that this is an issue driven primarily by Western feminism.
I happened to be present for the first official US debates of this issue, at the 1970 General Convention, and I met most of the first 20 or 25 women to be ordained in TEC. The group was as diverse as the clerical order in the House of Deputies itself. Some were indeed radical feminists (Carter Heyward has never been shy about who she is or what she believes), but others were considerably more orthodox on the major articles of the Creed than the median among male Episcopal clergy. To say that all women clergy are driven by a radical agenda is as inaccurate as to say that all African-Americans are born athletes.
As I have said here before, I do not find the theological arguments for women’s ordination compelling, but I also find the arguments against it to be a lot weaker than most opponents will admit. (In that connection, I find it interesting that so many ancient, medieval, and modern opponents of women’s ordination use arguments that are directly or indirectly derived from those of Tertullian, who was so unconvinced by his own reasoning that he ended up joining a group with female leadership.) The best argument is simply that the mainline Catholic and Orthodox churches have not ordained women for a very long time. However, if that decision was originally a mistake (as based on presumptions that nobody today would accept), it has not gotten any better with age. If neither side has an argument that compels assent, it comes down to a question of the burden of proof.
Virtually all women clergy genuinely believe that they have received God’s call to ordained ministry. You may disagree with them, but people who actually know them—including their rector, their home vestry, their bishop, their commission on ministry, their standing committee, their doctor, their psychologist, and their seminary faculty—validated their call when they became postulants, again when they became candidates, again before they became deacons, and finally before they were priested. You clearly disagree with that assessment, but my personal inclination is to rely on their collective judgment more than your individual opinion. You say that it is impossible for women to be priests, but I suspect that in God all things are possible, so I am a bit uncomfortable stating dogmatically that there are things that God cannot do… such as call a woman to ordained ministry.
I would like us to agree to disagree on this question, and I wish that Anglicans generally could maintain their 30-year-old agreement to disagree. However, both the advocates of women’s ordination in the TEC General Convention and the opponents in certain dioceses have ruled out local option as a viable possibility. That attitude seems to be spreading within the new Anglican groups as well. That does not bode well for the unity of Anglicanism in North America, even if TEC and the ACofC left the Communion.
Brian (#39). I expect the feminine is correct; the real question is what relationship to the apostles is being implied. I’m sure there is disagreement among Greek scholars, but there are numerous scholarly articles in refereed journals arguing for that a non-inclusive relationship is implied when looking at the passage in isolation (not that it diminishes Paul’s praise). Contextually, the non-inclusive reading gets reinforced.
I don’t see the lack of women priests as an obstacle to our mission as Christians (does anyone remember that? LOL) but if the attitudes toward women expressed on this board are typical, I doubt you are going to see many women choose Anglicanism. It will indeed be a lot of old and aging people following some faded fifties idea of what religion should look like. RC seems more viable.
Re #70: Women’s ordination came into the church because the Anglican Church of Hong Kong had a critical clergy shortage that its bishop and leadership felt could only be filled by ordaining women. Whatever the story in the US, women’s ordination in the rest of the world has been driven precisely “because the church asked for it.” Again, I met most of your “aggressive group of women” and can testify that many of them were not just “forcing the matter as a justice issue,” but had perfectly orthodox Christian motives.
Re #69: If all bishops are to be the husband of one wife, the episcopate died out in the Western Church about AD 1000 when clerical celibacy was generally enforced, and even earlier in the Eastern Church when it became a requirement for potential bishops to be under monastic vows. Quite obviously, the Church long ago felt itself competent to ignore marriage as a requirement for ordination, notwithstanding Timothy 3:2; neither did it require them to be fathers of well-disciplined children, notwithstanding 3:4-5. Given that degree of flexibility in scriptural interpretation, I don’t see women’s ordination as that much more of a stretch, unless we are planning to bar women from teaching mixed Sunday School classes and from any secular profession that might involve supervising male coworkers or clients.
Dale, women’s ordination has emboldened groups who considered themselves on “equal footing” when, at the end of the day, they are no more than common sexual deviants as I said in my prior posts.
As a group, ordained women should have stood up and much more vigorously stated the case against the co-opting of their elevation to ordained ministry in the church. There is a world of difference between great female clergy and drag queens who want to be June brides. In the TEC today, there is virtually no difference.
The Eastern Church had deaconesses from early times. The problem is when you allow them to perform as celebrants. There is no way a woman can stand as an icon of Christ in the Eucharistic service. It is a gnostic heresy to insist otherwise. And practically speaking, it’s the camel’s nose under the tent for all sorts of nonsense. The poster above was right: grandmother them out if you want a truly catholic Christian faith.
Thank you, Fr. Armstrong. I find this very encouraging. Thirty years ago, without giving it much serious consideration, I thought it looked like a good idea. I’ve changed my mind, even though I have, as we all have, met a few very fine Christian ordained women.
#75 Dale:
Paul was giving Timothy “principles†or “guidelines†for the selection of elders in the church. Could an unmarried man become an elder? Yes. Paul when speaking on marriage in 1 Cor 7 wrote that it was better to be single and celibate to be able to freely serve the Lord. However, many elders were married. Also, when Paul said, “husband of one wife,†in the Greek he was literally saying, “one woman man.†Elders in the church that are married are to be married to only one woman. This is not speaking to polygamy, because that would be adultery and that person would be excommunicated from the church, let alone from church leadership. A divorced and remarried man cannot serve in a leadership role. In fact, the Scriptures and the early church consistently state that those who remarry while their first spouse is still living are committing adultery.
However, what is salient to our conversation is that those who desire the office of bishop (overseer – in the Scriptures bishop and elder refer to the office, not two separate ones) are to be male. Paul at the end of the previous chapter spoke to women not being able to TEACH OR HAVE AUTHORITY OVER MEN. This refers to the local church. Outside the church, women can and do have authority over men. An elder has authority over the local church, which is composed of males and females. Can women teach other women? Yes. In fact, Paul tells Timothy to have the older women to teach the younger women. Can women teach children? Yes! Can women teach men (i.e. adult males)? NO! Following his statements on women not having authority over men, Paul speaks on the character traits of elders. He speaks of elders as males. Saying that women can be elders does not logically flow with the context and grammar of 1 Tim 2:11 – 3:8.
-Vincent
“Women’s ordination came into the church not because the church asked for it, but because an aggressive group of women wanted it and forced the matter as a justice issue” —Don Armstrong [#70]
“I met most of your ‘aggressive group of women’ and can testify that many of them were not just ‘forcing the matter as a justice issue,’ but had perfectly orthodox Christian motives” —Dale Rye [#70]
Important question of fact. We could help establish the answer by looking at the kind of arguments this group emphasized at the 1976 and 1979 general conventions. What I’ve read about those conventions suggests that these core supporters gave short shrift to evangelical and Anglo-Catholic concerns about fidelity to scripture and catholic order. Hence the emphasis of secular-type social justice arguments. Hence an attitude akin to saying, “Our experts have long since laid your silly, sexist concerns to rest. Call off your old, tired qualms!”
Dale is quite correct when he says that for those who are interested in either (1) and Anglican Communion solution; or (2) even a Global South Anglican Communion; there must be an acceptance of WO as being adiaphora. That doesn’t mean that everyone must accept WO as valid, but they must accept that they belong to a Communion which holds WO as being adiaphora.
The obvious solution that will come to pass will be dual jurisdictions in the US and elsewhere, which will exist in close Communion (as does San Joaquin, Ft. Worth, Dallas, Pittsburgh, South Carolina, Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya and the Southern Cone today). Nobody who opposes WO would ever be forced to accept women clergy, but they would not be able to force their views on to the entire Communion. Those on the anti-WO side who can not accept such an arrangement (which is the current situation in the Communion) would clearly need to join a non-Communion Anglican church or go to Rome.
The other possibility, jamesw, is that this innovation, which is currently “in reception,” will fail to be received in the long run. It is not possible that, having seen the troubles which have come to the provinces which went down this road, Global South provinces will reconsider and themselves begin to turn back, at the very least pausing to seriously consider the evidence of Scripture and Tradition before moving further?
The history of the “ordination” of women in the Anglican Communion is, in fact, far more complicated than is indicated by many of the above posts.
The history given by Dale Rye reflects the pseudo-history of the Windsor Report, itself a highly tendentious account of the matter, to put it kindly.
For those interested, some useful facts can be gleaned from here:
http://www.forwardinfaith.com/artman/publish/article_166.shtml
The circumstances of its passage in, e.g., Australia (which bear remarkable similarities to the ECUSA history) can be found here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20041108214810/trushare.com/91DEC02/DE02AUST.htm
Generally speaking, while I cannot speak from any deep knowledge of the history in the “global south,” it is safe to say that in many instances–ECUSA, the C of E, Australia–it was forced through by the barest of majorities, not by consensus, and that such promises as were made to dissenting minorities have either evaporated or have threatened to evaporate.
On the matter of deaconesses, it must be stressed that, insofar as we have any unambiguous testimony, deaconesses were always a lay order, almost certainly having evolved from the “order of widows” of which we know something, but not much. There was never, so far as we know, any notion in the eastern churches that deaconesses were “women deacons,” and they were practically non-existent in the west. For the most thorough examination of the evidence, see Martimort, Deaconesses: An Historical Study (readily available in paperback).
I am quite willing to concede that the diaconate raises different (if related) questions than the presbyterate or episcopate, but it is best to start from the facts.
I’m sorry to be inconvenient again, jamesw #81, but those opposed to Catholic order cannot avoid it: if I substituted “same-sex blessings” for “WO” in your comment, it would be perfectly at home at Fr. Jake’s.
For the AMiA report on the “ordination” of women, go here:
http://64.46.109.102/assets/AMiA-Womens-Ordination-Study-Aug-03.pdf
(PDF file, and large).
The study is very good and pretty thorough, but not (in my opinion) complete, missing some key points.
For what it’s worth (and I don’t suppose anyone is holding their breath), my own thoughts on the matter are presently unavailable due to the hacker-induced-collapse of the CaNN archives. I may post versions of my older pieces of this on my new site soon, however.
[blockquote]Dale is quite correct when he says that for those who are interested in either (1) and Anglican Communion solution; or (2) even a Global South Anglican Communion; there must be an acceptance of WO as being adiaphora. That doesn’t mean that everyone must accept WO as valid, but they must accept that they belong to a Communion which holds WO as being adiaphora.[/blockquote]
While I sympathize with the author’s attempt at a solution to our dilemma, I think it is time we simply stop saying this. For those opposed to the “ordination” of women, it is not now, never has been, and never will be an adiaphoron. Calling it that, no matter by whom, will not make it so, and the continued use of the term is only a form of self-deception for self-comfort by self-avoidance of the truth. It’s results are inevitably either broken, or impaired, communion. Period. Jurisdictions which differ may indeed get along—in fact, they should get along with all the grace that the situation will allow—but the situation will be comparable to the friendly relations between, say, Lutherans and Methodists, not between churches in the same communion. Please lets stop kidding ourselves.
IRNS, have you tried the internet archive as a way of recovering at least some articles:
http://web.archive.org/ (and enter your old URL)
or
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://rathernot.classicalanglican.net
IRNS and Phil: My point is that the Anglican Communion, as presently constituted, including San Joaquin, Ft. Worth, Nigeria and the Southern Cone, have all agreed to remain in Communion despite the mind of the Communion declaring that WO is not a church-dividing issue.
[blockquote]IRNS and Phil: My point is that the Anglican Communion, as presently constituted, including San Joaquin, Ft. Worth, Nigeria and the Southern Cone, have all agreed to remain in Communion despite the mind of the Communion declaring that WO is not a church-dividing issue.[/blockquote]
And my point was that declaring it thus did not, does not, and will not make it so. Simply put, being in full communion means, among other things, mutual interchangeability of orders. If that is not that case, then communion has, as the very least, been in some measure impaired. Period. The church has been divided, whatever words anyone at any level uses to paper over that fact or comfort themselves.
This is why talk of containing “two integrities” in one church is not merely destructive of communion, but self-destructive, because you are committing yourself to a lie.
Re #91: So, the elephant in the room finally becomes visible!
Substantial portions of the reasserter community within TEC, a larger proportion of those in border-crossing jurisdictions, and a still larger share of those in the Common Cause churches are not only convinced that women’s ordination is a bad idea, but insist that they will not voluntarily belong to a diocese in communion with another diocese that regards it WO as adiaphora.
If so, the whole project of constructing a united alternate Anglican Province in North America is a waste of time because it will be impossible in the long run for most of these folks to join, remain in, or even loosely affiliate with the Anglican Communion as it is currently constituted, or could likely be reconstituted. A solid majority of Anglican provinces today are ordaining women presbyters and almost all are ordaining women deacons (which #84 correctly points out as presenting a similar problem for the tradition-minded).
The situation is not much different even with the exclusion of all the provinces that have been wishy-washy about imposing a ban on gay blessings and ordinations. Most of the active Global South Movement jurisdictions ordain women deacons, many ordain women priests, and a few explicitly allow the consecration of women bishops (although none have yet been elected). Contra #82, those provinces are not likely to backtrack because they have “seen the troubles which have come to the provinces which went down this road.” On the contrary, they have had few troubles and consider the experiment to have succeeded in their local context. Neighboring provinces have seen the same thing, or they would not have followed the example of pioneers like Hong Kong, Uganda, and Kenya and begun ordaining women themselves.
At best, there would have to be two alternative “Anglican Communions” with North American provinces in impaired or broken communion with one another as well as with the official Communion. One has to wonder whether the fissioning process could be limited to one split. Once a church starts defining itself in confessional terms, it becomes harder to avoid conflicts between members whose confessions significantly differ.
People died for centuries over precisely the same differences in the theologies of grace, ministry, and the sacraments that divide Protestant-minded and Catholic-minded Anglicans. They’ve hung together for over 150 years despite these differences because they have valued Christian unity over doctrinal purity on these issues. Again, once anyone opts for purity over unity on one problem, it will be harder to choose unity over purity on other important issues. Once someone has left one diocese because he disagreed with the bishop, it becomes that much easier to leave another.
[blockquote]Re #91: So, the elephant in the room finally becomes visible![/blockquote]
No, merely undeniable. I have maintained its visibility for years, as have many others.
As for your analysis, you may indeed be correct. I choose to live in hope. The fact that the present crisis has forced some to come to terms with the truth is a hopeful sign. I continue to pray for a turning of the the tide. But it may indeed all come to naught. If so, then may God have mercy on us all.
It would seem to me that the Roman Catholic church has solved the problem of WO very handily and without much if any dispute or dissension; ie., No Womens Ordination. However, they have created orders for women to perform an extremely valuable support ministry in the form of the Sisterhood of Nuns who teach the youth and run hospitals – just to name two. They do this with dedication, love and discipline matched by few others. Let’s look across the Tiber for a little guidance and wisdom, or is this asking too much?
#20: I was thinking more along these lines in reflecting RC thought on the WO issue –
Link to [i]Ordinatio Sacerdotalis[/i] –
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html
Peace to ALL,
#65
[blockquote]Well then you have left the Anglican Communion, which is certainly fine.[/blockquote]
Ah, no, actually we haven’t, but that’s a discussion for another thread, I think.
[blockquote]I was born into Geneva, but converted to Canterbury and [i]am comfortable[/i] in TEC.[/blockquote]
That explains a lot, then.
I agree that womans ordination does not appear to bear good fruit. Therefore it cannot be of the Holy Spirit. That does leave something of a void, however for the talents of women. Although the Roman church did use to give such women useful vocations in teaching and hospitals, the fact that the state now does this cheaper, has essentially undercut the Catholic presence in hospitals and schools. What I have seen of womens religious orders is that they have floundered sadly, and have become, (largely due to their lack of useful work) enclaves of weirdo’s who dress funny, and work at odds and ends while trying to pay for the upkeep of the mother house with a declining population.
I pity them. I’m sure they feel trapped in a way that male priests do not. It does not surprise me that they might fall into the sin of envy, and wish to take the place of their brothers. After all, what useful work can religiously inclined middle aged women do for their church, if the roles of priest has been “taken” by men, and the roles of teacher, doctor, nurse, etc. has been opened up to the general public who is paid by the state for this work?
This situation is not a reason to appoint women to Holy Orders, however, but it is a tragedy, and I think it is reasonable to acknowledge it.
I think what would be more useful than either trying to force women who feel they have a vocation into religious orders (which in todays developed world seems like a collosal waste of talent) or forcing the church to swallow women priests (which does not appear to be of God), would be for the church to try to strengthen the role of the laity (men and women) as Christian workers (whether white collar, blue collar or pink collar) in the world.
#94 Athan,
There’s only so much [url=http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2007d/120707/120707a.htm]Rome[/url] can do.
Well, I guess we all just better shrug our shoulders and stay home.
#98 New Troll: What a fascinating link. I had no idea such existed. I was fascinated and not surprised by one quote: ” Besides its commitment to inclusiveness, the Womenpriests movement discourages titles for priests and bishops and requires no vow of obedience.” Well, of course not! We wouldn’t want any discipline about us now would we. Another quote concerned how they were “dismantling the Master’s house”. Yes, I imagine so. And they claim to be working within the RC Church? Not jolly likely. Let them fantasize. The main problem would seem to be how many dupes they lead down the path to Hell.
100 – Fantasizing is right. The claim to be working “within” the RCC, but certainly have no official recognition (at least on the upside). From an RCC-perspective, they have made multiple errors: not only can women not receive holy orders, an invalid bishop performed the so-called ordination (see the photo in 98’s link – I believe Fresen was excommunicated; certainly the male bishop she claims laid hands on her would be excommunicated in ther very instant).
Again, the elephant in the room. This is not about making a choice between TEC and the Anglican Communion… and it never was. Many of those with an “outside” strategy are really making a choice between the Anglican Communion and an entirely new, purified ecclesial community that will ordain neither women nor gay men and will not tolerate those who consider either as a real possibility. This new church will not be in communion with the historic See of Canterbury or the great majority of the existing Anglican provinces, and those who support its formation surely know that. They just don’t care. Finally, some of those in the “rejectionist” camp are beginning to admit that.
They don’t seem to be aware that an “Anglican Church” defined by adherence to a particular theology will require making that theology much more explicit than Anglicans have historically been willing to do. Those who reject women’s ordination on the grounds of a literalist Protestant reading of Scripture are going to have to face the incompatibility of that reading with the Catholic reading of those who reject women’s ordination on the basis of tradition. Those who believe in salvation by faith alone will have to face the incompatibility of that foundational principle with the idea that there is no salvation outside the visible Church. Those who are subjectively born again are going to have to define what being born again (regenerate) in baptism means, with Baptism in the Spirit presenting yet another issue. Those who see the essence of the priesthood in its power to offer the Eucharistic Sacrifice are going to have a pretty obvious problem when the Diocese of Sydney refuses to ordain females, but licenses lay women to preside at the Holy Communion.
The “elephant” is that those who oppose homosexual rights differ on other issues that are at least as important. The conflict with pro-gay reappraisers is masking those differences, but once the Great Satan of TEC and the ACofC have been vanquished, the differences will reemerge in forms that can no longer be covered over.
Dale Rye, I’m starting to share your pessimism. The sad thing is these purists are so busy straining out gnats that they have lost sight of real, authentic christianity. Evangelism cannot be for them because they are so busy rejecting their brothers and sisters in Christ, they don’t have the time or desire to reach out to others.
Why we are still sinners Christ died for us. That includes KJS, the gay bishops, and the ordained women.
Dale,
[blockquote]Those who reject women’s ordination on the grounds of a literalist Protestant reading of Scripture are going to have to face the incompatibility of that reading with the Catholic reading of those who reject women’s ordination on the basis of tradition.[/blockquote]
There is no contradiction– both are flip sides of the same coin. As for the Scriptural position being a “literalist Protestant reading of Scripture”, there are a few Church fathers who (by your measure) would be deeply surprised to discover they were, in fact, Protestants.
[blockquote] They don’t seem to be aware that an “Anglican Church†defined by adherence to a particular theology will require making that theology much more explicit than Anglicans have historically been willing to do.[/blockquote]
Historically Anglicans have been very willing to take a position on the issue of women’s ordination. It is only within recent history that any Anglican would even remotely consider this to be a possibility (among others that are currently tearing the fabric of the Communion). Make no mistake, the pro-W.O camp are the innovators, not the traditionalists.
justinmartyr,
[blockquote]Why we are still sinners Christ died for us. That includes KJS, the gay bishops, and the ordained women.[/blockquote]
Yes, we are all sinners and yes, Christ died for us. Do you believe that repentance has any significant role in salvation, though?
Does our being sinners mean we should not condemn the sin that we all wrestle with, whether it be adultery, murder, theft, greed, envy, pride, selfishness, gluttony, homosexual practices, or any other practice that is contrary to Scripture (and many of us include W.O. here). How is this “straining at gnats”? Real, authentic Christianity embraces sin and disregards God’s revealed will for humanity and (even) the Church?
I’m saying that the time spent tearing each other apart on this site and in the courts is time we are not spending reaching out to the world or sharing Christ with the lost. farstrider, I probably agree with your theology, but I cannot abide your sentiment. Paul had disagreements with Barnabas so sharp that they couldn’t witness together. Instead of endless arguing and excommunications, they went their way and continued working toward a common goal–the spreading of the Gospel.
Luther called the devil “God’s devil.” And at the very worst I believe KJS to be “God’s KJS.” By that I mean that God can bring about good even through this woman.
I’m sick and tired of being told by my Roman friends how wrong the protestants are, and by the protestants how evil Catholics are. The Via Media held such promise for me. Now I wonder if it is just a shell-torn no-man’s land between a dozen warring factions.
You know you’re never going to persuade the pro-WO people, or the reappraisers of the rightness of your cause? Why can’t we just shut up and get out there and wash our enemy’s feet?
Irenically.
No. 102 – Dale – Whatever our belief on WO and ordination of gay practicing homosexuals is, you have pointed out the incompatibility of the even deeper issues of Protestant and Catholic ecclesiology, belief, and practice that is now obsucured by the temporary alliance of those two strains in the Reasserter cause. Thx. It is my belief, by the way, and one that has been criticized on this and other sites, that the leadership in the solution of the WO and gay issues will come from the RC Church, though unfortunately not probably in our lifetime. What do you think?
In a way, #71 makes my point for me. Read it again. You will hear the whining tone, the use of guilt, shame and (the writer hopes) remorse as a device for manipulating the reader. Coping strategies? There is an old study, I can’t remember where I read it, years ago in any case, in which children, boys and girls, were faced with the problem of how to get across a boundary. The boy’s tendency was to smash through it. The girls tendency was to stand by the obstacle and cry. The intent here was to ask whether such behavior was cultural or inherent. The result of the experiment clearly favored the notion that the responses were inherent. Here’s an epiphany: Men and women are fundamentally different and therefore solve their problems in very different ways.
Incidentally, Hope is sorry for my bad personal situation. What bad situation is this? AS to peasants in my background, I am at a loss to understand the relevancy of this observation, but since I am the American equivalent of a peasant right now – I’m a small farmer barely surviving – I guess I don’t have to worry about peasants in my background. Incidentally, the Morse coat of arms has a headsman’s ax. Our name once was Mors, that is, “death.” So it looks as if I have executioners in my past. Yoicks.
As to women blending into the background and no longer needing these “coping” strategies, I would suggest listening to Nancy Pelosi who uses the old tricks of guilt and shame to manipulate and who does not hesitate to twist an arm at the same time. Do I want Pelosi or Hillary as my priest? And I might add that white guys, – those oppressive demons – are in the minority now. Can we expect those female coping strategies to appear? Or will they continue to do what men have done regardless of their social position? Larry
justinmartyr,
I think it is a mistake to assume that churches can only do one thing at a time. It is entirely possible to wrestle with matters of theology [i]and[/i] share the good news that Christ came to reconcile us to God and set us free from our slavery to sin, death and hell. I am part of a church plant that is doing just that. We also had to do this on the mission field. Paul also had to do this.
[blockquote]Paul had disagreements with Barnabas so sharp that they couldn’t witness together.[/blockquote]
Paul’s disagreements with Barnabas are in an entirely different category from the disagreements we are discussing here. They were not theological disagreements; they were personal. Paul didn’t think Mark was missionary material and didn’t want to take Mark with him. Barnabas saw that Mark had potential and decided that he would take Mark on his own. If you want a New Testament parallel to our situation, look at Paul’s (and Peter’s John’s and Jude’s) response to false teachers and libertarianism dwelling within the Church.
What sentiment of mine is it that you cannot abide, precisely, and how do my sentiments differ from those of the Church Catholic through the centuries?
In re: the Via Media, and Catholic/Protestant relations, you and I are on the same page. But the Via Media lies between Augsburg (or Geneva, depending on one’s proclivities) and Rome, not Tubingen and Rome.