It now looks as if the Lambeth Conference is beginning to go in the direction hoped for by both the Archbishop of Canterbury and Rome ”“ preventing schism through the centralisation of authority.
The three major proposals are these:
1. A new Anglican ”˜Faith and Order Commission’ which will looks a lot like an embryonic Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The body would “give guidance” on doctrinal questions to the Anglican Communion.
2. A “blueprint” for a Code of Canon Law ”“ a set of rules which are “descriptive” rather than “prescriptive”. It is likely that these rules would prevent, say, conservative African bishops exercising oversight over conservative American dioceses which do not recognise their own bishop’s authority.
3. An ”˜Anglican Covenant’ ”“ a document setting out core Anglican beliefs and a biding agreement to abide by them. This would almost certainly exclude the possibility of a practising gay man becoming a bishop.
These ideas come out of the Windsor Continuation Group, which is responsible for implementing the 2004 Windsor Report commissioned by the Archbishop of Canterbury to chart a way through the crisis engendered by the consecration of Gene Robinson in 2003. One of the main players in this group is the Bishop of Durham, Tom Wright, who is close to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the man to watch in the current crisis.
With only a week to go before the Lambeth Conference ends, the stakes could not be higher. These plans are, essentially, Dr Williams’s proposals for resolving the crisis; and there aren’t any others that stand a chance. The big question is: will the North Americans accept them? And will they be enough to bring back the Gafcon bishops boycotting Lambeth?
I do not think these proposals stand any chance. We all seem to want our cake and eat it. If TEC really believes that its stance on inclusiveness is a prophetic call from God then she should stand firm and go it alone. If it is God’s Will, the Anglican Communion will catch up in His own good time. Trying to put mutually exclusive positions into a structure will simply shake the whole Anglican edifice apart. There comes a point when Christian conscience outweighs the need for institutional unity. What difference would it make to the Anglican world if TEC “walked apart”? Christians from the various churches would still receive communion, parishes would have firm links and we would, like true Anglicans, muddle through. I realise the dissenting parishes in TEC would have problems so here is my big idea. Why is the one infallible dogma of the Anglican Church the belief that a bishop should have total control over everything in a particular territory? Anglicanism is gloriously fuzzy, so why not allow parishes to join a non-geographical personal prelature which is still part of TEC. Why are flying bishops so evil? Surely a little generosity now will save so much aggravation later. This goes for my own C of E whose Synod has just seen fit to make anglo-catholic life unbearable.
i for one would be very happy if this came to pass; the church has broken my heart but i have not yet decided to convert to catholicism. i have been hoping for something like this, better late than never.
Will anglo-catholic life be truly unbearable because of a woman in the Episcopate?
Look to America, adhunt. Check out the actions of a woman in the episcopate and the Presiding Bishop office. Then ask your question again.
The answer: maybe not today, and maybe not tomorrow, but yes, assuredly yes.
I certainly do agree that the Presiding Bishop has done great harm and burns more bridges than she can rebuild later. Nonetheless I fail to see that it can actually be demonstrated that her unfortunate leadership is ONLY poor because she is a woman. Not only is that incredibly ignorant to the innumerable poor decisions made by men in the Episcopate, but it is simply unproveable. Were the heretical beliefs of past Catholic bishops the result of them being men?
Let me end assuring you that I have no desire for my comment to be taken as an attack, merely an assertion that I believe your assertion to be unfounded.
Respectful in Christ
Even now I don’t know about women’s ordination (as priests and bishops). I am not persuaded by The Roman Magesterium’s ‘in personem Christ’ line of reasoning. It seems to require universal exceptance not only of Thomist philosophy but of a specific strand of Thomist philosopht.
On the other hand I am likewise not persuaded by Mainline Protestant arguments sounding in 1.) civil rights, or 2.) self actualization.
The one think that seems certain to me is looking for the spirit and its fruits. At the moment things look very bad for women’s ordination. The thing that strikes me most is the means under which it was introduced. The first illicit ordinations had a clear spirit of strife and transgression and self-justification. How can we not see our present circumstances as nothing other than the fruits of this “claim the prize” understanding of vocation?
Less forceful to me but still compelling is the ‘main and plain’ understanding of Paul’s anthropological observations on the subject. I have long– please excuse me!– ‘bracketed out’ those ideas because I remember Paul himself teaching that certain are things are spoken from his limited personal experience and should be weighted as such. I am not young anymore, however, and as the years go by I see places where these ideas are taught and practiced and the congregations are clearly comfortably yoked. Indeed, more often than not the members who actively expound the teachings are women. I must say that my observation over these past few decades is that women in the rectory tend to drift into very claustrophobic, inwardly-directed approaches. Maybe, however, this is due to a certain type of self-selection.
With these resonate observations from Roman Catholics that not only women but married men bring diminished commitment to their posts. When you stop to think of a father’s needs to school his children and keep them integrated into the community this difficulty really hits home.
Dear adhunt,
For an Anglo-Catholic (at least one who still believes that the Anglican Communion does not have the authority to ordain women to the priesthood or episcopate), it is not a matter of the quality of a bishop’s decisions or their individual piety and holiness. It is simply a matter of doubt as to whether a particular bishop is really a bishop. Once doubt has entered into Holy Orders, there is a question over the Sacraments and things go from bad to worse. I am sure that some of the women bishops are far holier and more capable than many of the men sitting on the bench of bishops, but that is irrelevant. When I see a woman priest or bishop, I see doubt and confusion over their status, I see someone who has put more barriers between our Church and the RCs and Orthodox.
Your question may arise because you are from the Evangelical Wing of the Church so you see Orders very differently. This is the problem the Anglican Communion finds itself in at the moment. Different groups have different problems and various solutions to them that seem to pull us in opposite directions. For me, the problems of women bishops and practising gay bishops stem from the same root: the belief that our Communion and, indeed, individual Provinces have the authority to interpret Scripture and to act on the interpretation separately. We have no way of dealing with such issues as a Communion because we do not recognise one authority to which to appeal: be that a Magisterium, a common interpretation of the Scriptures or a sense of the Tradition that binds us together. If we believe that Anglicans should remain together then we have to be ready to accept a messy and fuzzy situation. It seems to me that the one thing the Liberals and evangelical Conservatives have in common is a desire for a simple, universal solution. If any one of the suggested simple solutions is imposed on the Anglican Communion, I believe it will, by its very nature, fly apart quicker than you can say Jack Robinson (or should that be Gene!!??)
The proposal for a new “faith and order commission†adds yet another layer of complexity and dialogue to an Anglican communion already drowning in a sea of words. Even before such a “fifth instrument of unity†could come into being, endless discussions, modifications, and compromises would likely render it to be ineffective – as was the previous “panel of referenceâ€.
An honest reflection upon the Anglican crisis can not help but conclude that radicle differences in core beliefs and practices are firmly established, whether conservative or liberal in nature. The compromise required to reconcile these differences is so great as to essentially eliminate the very foundation of faith
adhered to, regardless of which camp you find yourself in.
Instead, of battling it out for the next two decades with endless reports, commissions, panels, and conferences. All should agree to part company with grace and civility. Mutually agreed upon separation in this manner would maintain a viable Christian witness to the world, and allow all to maintain the integrity of their respective beliefs. This is the only sensible Christian solution.
Final thought: As for the need for the church to have an effective central authority to adjudicate in matters regarding doctrine and practice, this could never be more clear or certain. From the start the church has entrusted those appointed to the highest levels of leadership to fulfill this task. Such a council should be convened from among the Archbishops as soon as possible.
Until we are willing to be honest with ourselves, and with others, the trainwreck will only grow larger.
Dear PapalistPriest,
You are right that I am from a more Evangelical wing, and as yet I have not read a fully ‘catholic’ interpretation of the Apostolic Succession. Nonetheless I am familiar with the argument that you are making and I must point out that I was not making a thorough argument for or against women as priest/bishop etc… I was responding to the comment #4 that used the example of our Presiding Bishop as an example against ordination. I believe I rightly and correctly addressed his comment. I was not arguing anything else. It would seem to me that comments in the blogosphere are not necessarily the most appropriate place to argue a fully historical, exegetical and theological premise for or against women being ordained.
Dear adhunt,
Please do not take my earlier comments as criticism, I was simply trying to point out the difficulties of the present crisis for those of an anglo-catholic bent. Our common heritage as catholic, evangelical or the myriad positions inbetween is the 1662/1928 BCP, once that was side-lined and Provinces encouraged to go it alone, the delicate balance of Anglicanism was disrupted, perhaps fatally so.
Yours in Christ,
David
I certainly sensed no criticism from you
Yours also in Christ,
Tony
p.s. – I am hoping to attend an Anglo-Catholic Seminary (Nashotah House) so I will learn all about it!
Marion R. (#6), I agree with your statement,
“The first illicit ordinations had a clear spirit of strife and transgression and self-justification. How can we not see our present circumstances as nothing other than the fruits of this “claim the prize†understanding of vocation?”
The manner in which women’s ordination/consecration as priests and as bishops “was brought about” deligitimizes the consequent ordinations and consecrations.
If women’s ordination/consecration is to occur, it must be “brought about” through through a historically legitimate synodic decision of the clergy, not the laity.
I include only the clergy because they, by their very appointment to their positions of clerical responsibility, are supposed to possess the minimum prerequisite theological background for voting on such an issue.
The laity does not go through any sort of discernment process, except possibly for confirmation and adult baptism, and therefore cannot be assumed, as a voting body, to possess the theological or ecclesiological background for theological/ecclessiological decisions.
Moreover, the laity are much more open to manipulation by those with secular political agendas.
#12. I agree in principle that clergy, not laity, should decide these things in a synodical process. However, the assumption that “the clergy . . . are supposed to possess the minimum prerequisite theological background for voting on such an issue” lacks credibility when one sees the tripe that passes for “theological thinking” from the pens and mouths of even bishops! I, a lay person, have a Ph.D. in Theology. It keeps me humble–as the education has taught me that most things are harder to know than I used to think. But at least one must wrestle honestly toward understanding–in light of the sources of guidance we have including, very importantly, the revelation in scripture–as complex as it can be! I have no patience with the platitudes and jargon that often pass as theological thinking these days. And especially so when it comes from those who are in positions to LEAD Christ’s Church. Sorry for the rant.