The Future of Anglicanism - an end to Western hegemony: Bishop Bob Duncan

Dr. Duncan’s sermon is an encouragement to me…just when I was beginning to lose hope. I think I can hang in until spring. (Now where is that cute Smiley face when I want it?)

It is wonderful to receive this word of encouragement from Bishop Duncan although it shouldn’t be necessary.  This is a wise sheperd who I believe has more than once found it necessary to reveal part of the cards in his hand to reasserters who do not trust God or his appointed sheperds.  I pray we can all continue to pray fervently and uphold our leaders, building them up with supporting words rather than critiquing every word they utter and spreading the Chicken Little sermonette. 

I trust Bishop Duncan and pray for sagacity as he and our other orthodox bishops haggle with TEC about what we will take when we leave Egypt.  This is the time for those in revisionist congregations to begin praying about what direction God might lead them in anticipation of the exit in the coming year.  Will you respond to God’s calling should you be lead to planting a church (perhaps even as a home church) in your community?  Perhaps a place where other faithful Anglicans can gather for Morning prayer or evensong.  Let us be encouraged and begin preparations for fleeing Egypt.

Everything was moving along very nicely and I was with Bp. Duncan up until he began to discuss the innovation of Women in Holy Orders.  He seemed at that point to degrade into an experience-based hermeneutic.  He was using phrases like “plain meaning” and “primacy of Scripture” there for a while, but then he took a sharp left turn to a “new understanding” regarding the ordination of women.  This is where he lost me.  I think he had some prophetic things to say about the state of Anglican ecclesiastical affairs.  Ringing in a “century of reception” for women’s ordination is a mistake, IMHO.  If we don’t deal with this issue now instead of continuing to put it off to a later date, we’re just going to have to go through another reformation similar to the one that he is advocating now. That would be most unfortunate.

Why wait?

I’m confused by your statement, Chad. This is what I read.

To point 3) – the ordination of women – I do not wish to speak, which you will regard as this address’s one avoidance. My own support for women in holy orders is well known. Global Anglicanism has said that there are, in fact “two integrities” here, both arguable from Holy scripture, and – to employ Hooker’s method — less so from Tradition. I am convinced that an honest century of reception will sort this one out. I am also persuaded that our God has challenged us to deal with this issue, either because He does intend to bless this new understanding or because He has it in mind that we Anglicans will best find ourselves again in the institutional and relational charity it will require of us as a dynamic and faithful Anglicanism re-emerges.

Here is stating that the theology can be argued from both sides.  I understand that perspective.  I am still not sure where I fall on the subject mainly because the theology is not crystal clear on either side.  There is good argument that Paul was speaking to women being disruptive in Church but equally good evidence that we are to embrace the plain meaning of the text.  Plain meaning is always my first choice in reading Scripture but I also believe it has to be taken in context with the rest of the Bible.  Where the conflict for me comes in is that Paul (and Jesus) fully embraced women in their ministry.  Women were even prominent members of the leadership.  To me the issue is- does WO conflict with God’s planned order.    This is a theological debate that should be taken to the next level - theologically not emotionally or on a “human rights” issue.  It deserves to be heard not because any woman has the right to wear the collar but because it is a theological issue that needs to be addressed - biblically.  There are many, many women clergy who are more or as orthodox as any of us here and I may be wrong but fully believe, if at the end of the day, sound theology does not support women’s ordination, they would step down rather than risk offending their Lord. 

That being said, it is fully the reason the homosexual debate is so frustrating.  There is NO theology on that side.  It is all feelings and human rights and emotions.  To even think that Scripture does not condemn it outright one must make so many assumptions and contortions that - well, let’s say it is a dead give away.  It is not a gray area.  It was a planned public relations strategy from the beginning (Read After the Ball) that worked wonders because in our quest to hold our freedoms more dearly than Our Lord, we lost sight of the true prize.
Okay, I am stepping off my soap box now.

Please take notice of footnote 2 “The Bishop of Dallas has withdrawn from requesting APO”.  As went Florida so goes Dallas. `nuf said!

Jackie,
I think my big issue with Bp. Duncan’s address was mainly that it didn’t say much at all about one of the four issues cited as contributing to Anglicanism’s inability to hold together the three streams of the Anglican tradition of the Catholic Church (It should be noted that I’m not necessarily advocating the same typology that Bp. Duncan uses in describing Anglicanism i.e. 3 streams.  I’m simply working within the system he set up in his address).  Since he set Women’s ordination up as one of the four critical issues, I had hoped that he would address it in a head-on manner.  He even says in referring to this issue

To point 3) – the ordination of women –I do not wish to speak, which you will regard as this address’s one avoidance.

He avoids the issue.  This is what “reception” looks like.  It’s sidestepping the tough aspects of an issue but continuing to move forward with the innovation.  Instead, the issue should be dealt with head on.  It is a very tricky issue that has a lot of practical ramifications for the Church and also for those women who feel called to ordained ministry.

I should say that as a first order of business, however, people should not be told by anyone, male or female that simply because someone believes in an all male priesthood that this somehow means that they don’t “embrace women in their ministry”.  This is a false dichotomy that completely devalues both lay and specifically women’s contributions in ministry.

Additionally, it pains me to hear someone say something like, “I personally don’t have a problem with ordaining women.” I’m not attributing this statement to you Jackie, but this is basically what Bp. Duncan has done.  His personal support for Women in Holy Orders is mentioned, but not even so much as a blip about the ramifications of continuing this innovation until we sort things out.

I’m not saying that there aren’t two different theologies that are in play here on this issue.  I’m saying let’s engage the issue directly instead of sidestepping it.  We here terms like “reception” and “dialogue” and “study” so much that I would like to see more people (especially bishops)say, “Let’s get after it and figure this thing out!” and really dig in.  Instead, honest discussions, theological study and (God willing) a clear understanding of what is really in play here is once again pushed off into the misty future.

I originally supported the idea of women clergy, from a non-spiritual “equal rights” perspective,  but more recently I have begun to seriously question the concept of female bishops and to a lesser degree female priests.  IMHO:

1.  While Jesus held women as very important and included many women among his followers, he did not make any of them apostles.  This biblical precedent gives me great pause about making women bishops, whether or not they serve as priests. 

2.  From the earliest times the greatest threat to the church has been heresy.  Men, generally speaking, are more willing than women to throw people out of the tribe.  Hence, male bishops should be a stronger defense against heresy than female bishops might be.  (Admittedly, even male bishops can fail at this endeavor of stamping out heresy, as we have witnessed in our own Episcopal Church since the 1960s.)

3.  We all know women who are wonderful priests.  However, we also have to look at the institutional effect of female priests.  Institutionally, many of the women who have become Episcopal priests are lesbians or highly-politicized heterosexuals with a 60s “equal rights” agenda, and IMHO their ideas and impact on the Episcopal Church have not come from the Holy Spirit.  Did Jesus have in mind this institutional effect, and women’s greater reluctance to eject people from the tribe, when he chose his apostles?   

4.  Women can be ministers and leaders, as they were in Old and New Testament times, without being priests or bishops.  (Women can also be deacons, of course.)

5. Not having the administrative and other required duties of a priest or bishop can actually free women to be more productive in their callings to ministry and leadership roles.  (I believe this is one purpose of the office of deacon.)  For example, lay minister Agnes Sanford left a much greater positive legacy than any ECUSA priest or bishop I can think of in the last 100 years.  I doubt she would have had the time and freedom to pursue her healing ministry if she had been a priest or bishop.

I offer these points as food for thought because I don’t often see them presented.

Mark Brown
San Angelo, Texas
October 26, 2006

Head on, feet, elbows, knees, toes and noses.  I am all for confronting any issue God has placed before us.  I think we can all agree WO is before us.

I am all for confronting any issue God has placed before us.  I think we can all agree WO is before us.

And yet we continue to sidestep it.  I suspect taking this tack keeps Bp. Duncan in good graces with all of the women (especially the women clergy) from his diocese.  I don’t see that this so much as effective leadership as much as “going along to get along.” 
I think Bp. Duncan is very perceptive in many ways on many issues.  My point is that he, along with many others, is selective about what he wants to deal with and this does not always serve the best interest of the Church or even of his own Diocese of Pittsburgh.

Jackie,
I couldn’t agree with you more and I found your reasoning to be sound.  Until quite recently, I was a supporter of WO.  I have had misgivings off and on about WO to the priesthood because a priest stands in the role as “alter christus”, and Jesus was clearly a man.  I openly discussed those misgivings during my discernment process and again when I was a candidate for Holy Orders over a decade ago.
My own reasons were theological in that both scripture and early church history and tradition give strong indications that women’s leadership roles included that of presbyter.  I struggled with the call to the priesthood for many years until it became too compelling to be silenced.  I went through the process and was nearly accepted, but was denied going forward on a 7/6 vote of the commisssion on ministry in my diocese.  I was told that once I thought that I was ready again I would be welcomed to go back through the process at a later date.  For many reasons I did not and now I will not.
For me, it was never about “my rights” or “social justice”, I never thought of a call to Holy Orders as anything but a compulsion to serve our Lord by being a shepherd to a portion of His flock.  I knew that it was NOT a right or a privilege, but a duty and that not being called would be better because a minister is held to a higher standard of accountability before the judgement seat of God.
In 2003, when the news broke, I told my husband that I was grateful that I was not a priest in the Episcopal church.  Sometimes I think that WO is just another type of scriptural cherry picking and sometimes I believe the is genuine validity for WO.
But, for the sake of the gospel and for the sake of our witness in the world and in deference to so many of our Anglican, Orthodox and Roman Catholic brethern, I believe that there needs to be a moratorium on WO for at least 25 years, maybe 50 years.  It has been an issue of divisiveness and I have come to realize that for some many women being ordained is all about an agenda of feminism and not being a servant of Christ.

Too true, Gayle.  I have always had a desire to be a priest but never felt called.  In my opinion, my desire has nothing to do with it.  If only every candidate approached ordination the way you did (male or female) with a heart open to God’s will, we probably wouldn’t be conversing on this blog today.  So once again, what man intended for evil, God made good.

The issue of Womens Ordination should have been settled once and for all 30 years ago, before the first woman was ever ordained. +Righter forced the issue on us much as the Diocese of New Hampshire and GC03 forced gay bishops on us. If talk is what we need, then by all means let’s talk but NO action, “prophetic” or no, should ever have been taken until a communion wide consensus had been reached. The fact that +Righter and others of his ilk were never disciplined is why things are in such a sorry mess today. We don’t need 100 years of more talk about WO. That genie is already out of the bottle. Let’s settle it now and be done with it.

the snarkster

Mark, your point #2: 

2. ...  Men, generally speaking, are more willing than women to throw people out of the tribe.  Hence, male bishops should be a stronger defense against heresy than female bishops might be.  (Admittedly, even male bishops can fail at this endeavor of stamping out heresy, as we have witnessed in our own Episcopal Church since the 1960s.)

  Maybe these are all really “girly-men”.

snarkster,

Isn’t it true that there was a communion-wide decision that we go local option on WO (paragraphs 12-16 of the Windsor Report)?  If so, then the Anglican Communion handled it properly, and the Episcopal Church did not.  Maybe the real discussion is whether or not the communion should grant local option.

The whole idea of “reception” is to let the various provinces “test” and see if a particular practice is of God or not. It is akin to “testing the spirists” as the Apostle Paul puts it. Women’s ordination is not a done deal within the Anglican Communion. That being said, the real issue was that ECUSA treated it as a political rather than a theological issue and created “facts on the ground.” This is generally the way any “new thing” has been put in play in ECUSA - act first - “prophetically” -.  claim it is the “Spirit doing a new thing,” and then make it a “justice issue” with full-bore lobbying, arm-twisting and activist manipulation. Make it “local option” to lull the skeptics and the ones making principled objections then wait for a period before making it mandatory.

This is how ECUSA has handled women’s ordination. There was no real theological argument or debate. The same thing was done with ordination of active homosexuals. Act first, justify it later, and lie, lie, lie all the while. This is no way to run a branch of the Body of Christ.

I agree with brother Nusbaum. It is time to face this issue squarely and honerstly and openly and not try to tippy-toe around it. In any event, it would be a good idea to have a moratorium until things can be worked out properly.

Just my thoghts.

As a person who has never changed my mind about Women’s Ordination [i believe that scripture does not support it] I have to say that I believe that you are mistaken about Bishop Duncan and the many many evangelicals who support it.

Bishop Duncan *has* “faced the issue head on” and he believes it to be theologically correct.  So have the others that I have spoken with.

Amongst evangelicals, I’m sorry to say that the issue has not been sidestepped at all—the two sides simply disagree and are extremely unlikely to ever change their minds.  They have “studied” and they said “let’s get after it and figure this thing out” . . . and you know what?  They did “figure it out”—they’re either “for it” or “against it”.

I think that what you see as “they don’t want to face the issue—they are sidestepping” is merely a very clear realization on their part that their minds [both for and against] are made up.

Evangelicals who are pro-WO ardently and firmly believe that women’s ordination is godly, traditional, and biblical.  Evangelicals who are anti-WO ardently and firmly believe that women’s ordination is not godly, not traditional, and not biblical.

The truth is . . . evangelicals who are pro-WO will be just fine “on their own” and if you insist that they give up what they believe to be scriptural, they will simply depart. 

So the *real issue* is . . . is the Women’s Ordination isssue going to be “communion breaking”.  Will those who believe Women’s Ordination is unbiblical also decide that this matter is a “First Order” issue about which there can be no communion?

If indeed Women’s Ordination is a “First Order” and salvific issue for those people—then they will simply not be with those who ardently believe that WO is biblical.

If Women’s Ordination is NOT considered a “First Order” and salvific issue for those opposed—then the anti and pro Women’s Ordination parties will be able to be together in one church.

PS: In response to this question—“So the *real issue* is . . . is the Women’s Ordination isssue going to be “communion breaking”.  Will those who believe Women’s Ordination is unbiblical also decide that this matter is a “First Order” issue about which there can be no communion?”—the Anglican Communion has already formally decided that it will NOT be a communion breaking issue.  This was informally confirmed yet again at the public Network meeting when some of the Global South primates affirmed that while some were pro Women’s Ordination and some anti Women’s Ordination, it was not a communion breaking issue for them.

Perhaps WO in and of itself is not a “first order” issue, but if we continue to address thological differences by allowing the “new” thing to begin without a consensus, then the next thing you know, some Province will ‘consecrate’ a divorced and openly-gay homosexual using the same rationale…

This is the problem.  And while we hope and pray for ‘discipline’ in the second case, we simply ignore the facts of the other.  Hypocritical at best…

Wilkie, there is a consensus within the Anglican Communion regarding both matters:

1) WO is not communion dividing.

2) Consecration of non-celibate homosexual is communion dividing.

That was and is the consensus of the Anglican Communion.

Again - the process is the problem and willcontinue to be.  There is no “cocnensus” on WO just an acceptance not to dicipline those whi have stepped-out in front of the consensus.  And discipline is the them I hear you repeating over and over again (and a dream of mine as well, though I hardly hold my breath).

And I dare say if you talked to our Worthy Opponents they would make the case that “consecration of a non-celibate homosexual” is not a dividing issue, simply an alternative interpretation of scripture.

And lastly, if the AC is in concensus on (2), which has been taking place for years both here and in other Provinces, why has the AC not divided?

And when it finally does divide - and you end up in a “congregational” church (I think that is what you concluded would be your likely new home on an earlier blog), where will that leave all of us who will be picking up the pieces with a new GS-led communion?

And how do you square your belief in the value of a global communion with the “local option” punt on issues like this?  An issue that in fact did “divide” the Communion simply because it was not addressed (or should I say, because there was no discipline for those who innovated).

It’s not that I even disagree with you on WO (although I lean toward Tradition when Scripture is not clear) or the value of Communion, it is just that your thesis to date seems to be so heavily tied to discipline by the Communion and that same lack of discipline is being seen as a ‘positive’ in the case of WO.

I’ve been afraid for quite a while that WO will be the issue that keeps the orthodox from gathering into one communion and will have us end up in a lot of splinter Anglican-type organizations.  I pray Sarah is right about this - that it won’t be a communion breaker . . . but every time the issue comes up here or on T19, I fear it is the largest elephant in the orthodox room.

but every time the issue comes up here or on T19, I fear it is the largest elephant in the orthodox room.

You are exactly right Tami.  The issue of WO has not been dealt with.  It was simply ushered in as a justice issue.  The rest of the AC was not consulted and certainly the rest of Christendom was not consulted.  We just moved forward with it.

The reasons put forth for why we should NOT ordain women are different than those reasons used to NOT ordain non-celibate homosexuals.  But the reasons used FOR proceeding forward with both of these innovations were/are the same or at least remarkably similar.  My point being that you can’t say we should stop one if you are not prepared to stop both since the same rationale for proceeding forward was used.  This doesn’t mean that the situations are the same.  It only means that you have to get the reasons right in order to proceed.  That hasn’t happened in this case and it creates problems for the future.  Anyone that wants to usher in future innovations can do that in the exact same manner as WO, SSB, ordination of homosexuals, etc.  It’s just not the right way to go about it.

The real question for dioceses like San Joaquin, Fort Worth and Quincy which believe in an all male priesthood/episcopacy is can they reproduce?  As it stands right now, that is not possible due to a mandate by TEC for the acceptance of WO.  A newly elected Bishop taking a stance against WO would not be able to get approval in TEC despite the election by the people of that diocese.  How can it be that a diocese that holds to the historic practice of the Catholic Church and bound in Scripture and adhering to the consensus of the rest of Christendom is told that they are doing something wrong and must stop?  It is because this IS, in fact, a communion breaking issue.  How so?  Sarah Hey makes the point for me.

<block quote>The truth is . . . evangelicals who are pro-WO will be just fine “on their own” and if you insist that they give up what they believe to be scriptural, they will simply depart.</blockquote>

It is all fine and dandy to say “this is not a communion breaking issue” until, as Tami has noted, the elephant has been addressed and you are asked to stop doing (i.e. moratorium) what you are doing until it can be addressed.  At that point, as made clear by Sarah’s quote above, evangelicals begin to depart and it has become a communion breaker.  The truth is that up to now it hasn’t been a communion breaker for anti-WO people still left in the TEC.  The pro-WO folks don’t see it that way at all.

“The truth is . . . evangelicals who are pro-WO will be just fine “on their own” and if you insist that they give up what they believe to be scriptural, they will simply depart. “

I am a pro-limited WO evangelical as is my ordained wife. We believe limited WO to be consistent with the scriptures. But if there will be no orthodox unity unless WO is stopped, she has said she would give up her collar. It is a secondary issue, that is why we don’t think we can insist on it if the Church decides otherwise.

While I don’t agree with WO and concede this is a huge flaw in the speech, I hope we won’t overlook the other 98% of it.  Bishop Duncan has delivered a remarkable, even brilliant analysis that is both provocative and breaks news (i.e., he expects a settlement to be in place or well on its way between ECUSA and the ACN by mid next year).

Thank God for this faithful servant.

<blockquote> I am a pro-limited WO evangelical as is my ordained wife. We believe limited WO to be consistent with the scriptures. But if there will be no orthodox unity unless WO is stopped, she has said she would give up her collar. It is a secondary issue, that is why we don’t think we can insist on it if the Church decides otherwise. </blockquote>

I am aware of you and your wife’s situation Father Matt.  While we might disagree on the theology, I think your humble approach to the situation is admirable and your wife’s willingness to “give up her collar” in the interest of orthodox unity is courageous.  I hope that I would be willing to do the same if faced with similar circumstances.

My belief is that this would not be the case for most of the advocates for women’s ordination and think that Sarah Hey’s point backs that up.  I wish more people would have the courage that you and especially your wife have demonstrated in your statements.

Wilkie, you do not seem to have done much research regarding how the Anglican Communion handled women’s ordination.

First of all, 2/3 of the provinces of the Anglican Communion accept the ordination of women.

Kenya and Uganda accepted WO in the mid to late 1970s.

The Lambeth Conferences of 1978 and 1988 passed resolutions stating that WO would not be communion dividing nor a cause for discipline. 

When I say that something is not “communion dividing” I do not mean that people on both sides do not ardently disagree.  I simply mean that the leaders of the Provinces—Primates—on both sides determined that they could live within Communion with those who believed otherwise on that particular issue.

In contrast, 22 of the 38 provinces have declared impaired or broken communion, over the consecration of a non-celibate homosexual as a bishop.  NOT ONE province declared impaired or broken communion over women’s ordination.

Regarding what I think will happen should the communion not discipline ECUSA and the communion fracture?  I think that there will be a separate ordination track for those Anglo-Catholics in the new whatever-it-is-traditional-communion.  I think that matters will be settled handily for those who believe that women’s ordination affects both orders and sacraments.

Let’s face it—those Anglo-Catholic clergy and bishops who believed that women’s ordination was of first order significance and a salvific matter left the Anglican Communion long ago.

Ironically, I still believe I had and still have a genuine call from God to the ordained ministry, in spite of the fact that I no longer support WO, at this time.  Like Matt’s wife, I have metaphorically given up my collar in making the decision 1) not to pursue any type of ordained ministry (including the permanent diaconate) and 2) to publically state my opinion that there needs to be a long mortorium on WO, looking not just at what the AC is saying about it, but also look toward our other brethern of the faith such as Roman Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodox church.  Like myself and others, WO was pushed from an agenda of women’s right and not from a theological standpoint of what does the Church do in light of Holy Scripture when a women demonstrates both a compelling call to the servant ministry of the deacon or the sacrament ministry of priest and the gifts through which to discharge such ministry.
For myself, I had started to feel the stirrings of a call that I thought was extinguished about a year or so ago.  Prehaps my call is to live in a peculiar tension of obedience.  Several years ago when I was put forward by a unanimous vestry in a conservative parish, one of the vestry members told me that he didn’t still didn’t believe in WO but that I seemed to be the exception to that rule. 
I have also come to learn recently that one of the reasons that I was not put forward by the commission was the belief that I could not find a home within ECUSA as a female priest.  Churches that would feel comfortable with my staunch orthodoxy and biblical based faith could not be comfortable calling a woman as priest, and those churches that were quite comfortable with my gender would be offended by my less than diverse stance of what scripture said and meant.

RE: “The issue of WO has not been dealt with.  It was simply ushered in as a justice issue.  The rest of the AC was not consulted and certainly the rest of Christendom was not consulted.  We just moved forward with it.”

Chad—again, it does not appear that you have done much research on this matter within the Anglican Communion.

The issue of women’s ordination was first brought to the communion in 1968 at the Lambeth Conference—by Hong Kong.  That conference wanted it addressed by the Anglican Consultative Council [ACC].

The bishop of Hong Kong [and another bishop, I believe] brought that issue to the ACC in 1970.  By a narrow vote, the ACC stated that Hong Kong could proceed and promised that it would do what it could to keep the issue from being “communion dividing”.

In 1978, the Lambeth Conference passed resolution 21, and in 1988 the Lambeth Conference passed resolution 1 concerning women’s ordination.

Your statement that “The rest of the AC was not consulted” is false.

Finally, Chad, your statement that my statement supports the idea that WO is communion breaking is also a false analogy.

Here’s where you make the assertion: “At that point, as made clear by Sarah’s quote above, evangelicals begin to depart and it has become a communion breaker.  The truth is that up to now it hasn’t been a communion breaker for anti-WO people still left in the TEC.  The pro-WO folks don’t see it that way at all.”

Let’s suppose that the communion divides—the ABC fails in his office and the consequences that I dread actually occur.

Let’s suppose that the orthodox fragment of the fractured communion has 1/3 Anglocatholics who are opposed to WO and 2/3 evangelicals who support WO.

Now let’s suppose that the evangelicals, in a vicious turn of spiteful behavior very similar to the revisionists of ECUSA, decide that ALL DIOCESES in the new “orthodox communion fragment” MUST ordain women.  There will be no alternate track for Anglo-Catholics either.

Let’s suppose that, in horror, the 1/3 of the Anglo-Catholics depart the new “orthodox communion fragment”.

Your analogy does not work.  Evangelicals will not then be able to screech about how Anglo-Catholics have a “communion dividing” rejection of WO.  Anglo-Catholics left NOT because the issue of WO was “communion dividing”—after all, they had remained within ECUSA and the unfractured Anglican Communion all that time.  No, they left because evangelicals had determined that they could not practice what they believed was godly.

Now, we use *your* false analogy.

Let’s suppose that the orthodox fragment of the fractured communion has 12/3 Anglocatholics who are opposed to WO and 1/3 evangelicals who support WO.

Now let’s suppose that the Anglo-Catholics, in a vicious turn of spiteful behavior very similar to the revisionists of ECUSA, decide that ALL DIOCESES in the new “orthodox communion fragment” MUST NOT ordain women.  Furthermore, all female “clergy” are defrocked.

Let’s suppose that, in horror, the 1/3 of the evangelicals depart the new “orthodox communion fragment”.

Anglo-Catholics will not then be able to screech about how evangelicals have a “communion dividing” support of WO.  Evangelicals left NOT because the issue of WO was “communion dividing”—after all, they had remained within ECUSA and the unfractured Anglican Communion all that time when three dioceses within ECUSA and some provinces within the Anglican Communion did not ordain women.  No, they left because Anglo-Catholics had determined that evangelicals could not practice what they believed was godly.

Sarah, re: “Let’s face it—those Anglo-Catholic clergy and bishops who believed that women’s ordination was of first order significance and a salvific matter left the Anglican Communion long ago.”

I’m sorry to disagree with you, but that is not true.  There are three whole dioceses of them and a scattering elsewhere even in our apostate province.  I’ll grant you they are a minority.

No Phil—those three dioceses are Anglo-Catholics who DO NOT believe that the issue of WO is “salvific”.

They do believe that it is intrinsic to their orders and intrinsic to their identity as Christians.

But the Anglo-Catholics who believe that people will die and go to hell who receive “fake sacraments by fake clergy” are Anglo-Catholics who are long long gone.

If *I* believed that the issue of women’s ordination was a salvific issue—that is, that people’s souls were in jeapardy because of it—than I could never have joined the Episcopal church.  I do believe it to be an issue that has been inaccurately determined by the supporters of it—I do not believe that scripture supports it—but then, I do not believe that scripture supports lots of things that other Christians do and believe.

The difference is between a belief or doctrine that is something that I can be in communion with other Christians over, and a belief or doctrine that I cannot.

It’s probably a good idea to listen to some of the primates of the Global South who were together on a platform at the last big national Network meeting, Hope and a Future, during the Primates Panel.  From Matt Kennedy’s blogging:

“What about WO?

++Kenya: We ordain women but we want to walk together with those who do not.

++Orombi: “My women priests excel more than some men.” It is not a major issue of life and death. So we stay together and work for the common cause of the gospel.

++SE Asia: We do not ordain women. “Ordination is not the end all objective of all ministry in the church.” This is not a communion breaking issue. We respect those who ordain women. “We ask that those who do respect those of us who do not.” Recommends the AMiA study on WO.

++Malango: We do not ordain women. Not a communion breaking issue.”

Wow, that Matt’s wife would give up the priesthood for the sake of unity is quite a testimony.

At this point I believe we all have to follow her example and think and pray about what we would give up for the sake of unity.

It may be the comfort of an old church building you have worshipped in for decades.  It may be a secure pension.  It may be your reputation at the hands of those who will call you names like fundamentalist or a homophobe or whatever the liberals can think up.

All these scenarios would cause discomfort, but are literally nothing compared to what Our Lord sacrificed to us.

Here we stand, we can do no other…

DoW

Sarah, I respectfully disagree.  Anglo-Catholics don’t believe, first of all, that women’s ordination is “intrinsic to their identity as Christians.”  You’re correct, however, that the issue is “intrinsic to their orders,” which means, contrary to what follows in your comment, that valid sacraments will not be delivered.

I stand corrected on characterizing this as “salvific,” but the situation would be one of, certainly, being saved, but never in a position to receive the Body and Blood of Our Lord.  I submit to you that is an intolerable position for Anglo-Catholics, but one not yet faced by Anglicans in the three dioceses in question.  There are many people in those diocese that think this way and have not yet left, but, if forced to accept WO as ECUSA plans, will leave.

Re: “You’re correct, however, that the issue is “intrinsic to their orders,” which means, contrary to what follows in your comment, that valid sacraments will not be delivered.”

I’m unsure of where I stated that for Anglo-Catholics valid sacraments would be delivered by a female purporting to be in holy orders, Phil.  I looked back at my comment and did not find it.  I know that AngloCatholics do not believe that sacraments are valid when delivered by a female purporting to be in holy orders.

Re: “I stand corrected on characterizing this as “salvific,” but the situation would be one of, certainly, being saved, but never in a position to receive the Body and Blood of Our Lord.  I submit to you that is an intolerable position for Anglo-Catholics, but one not yet faced by Anglicans in the three dioceses in question. “

We agree—it would be intolerable for Anglo-Catholics.

Re: “There are many people in those diocese that think this way and have not yet left, but, if forced to accept WO as ECUSA plans, will leave.”

We agree again.

But I thought that we were speaking about the possibility of Anglo-Catholics and evangelicals being in a communion together [they already are] should there be a split in the communion.

As I’ve stated above, should that split occur, I believe that there would be a separate ordination track and separate provinces—the kind that the Anglo-Catholics call for in Great Britain right now, for instance—that would allow both parties to be together in one entity.

The differences between 1) AngloCatholics who believe that the issue is of first order significance and salvific and 2) AngloCatholics who do not are distinct, from my observation.

You appear to fall into camp 2?

As I stated above, I do not believe that in a new fragment-of-an-orthodox-communion that these issues would be communion dividing.

I could be wrong, but I don’t think so.

I think matters will be handled in much the same way as the Global South has handled it—respecting the conscience of both parties.

Sarah, I’m sure I misunderstood you, but if you were referring to Anglo-Catholics who did not view their very act of being in communion with those ordaining female priests as church-dividing, then we agree.

So yes, I would be in camp 2 – for now.  Part of me thinks WO by itself – and maybe it was just a function of who pushed for it and how it was accomplished within ECUSA – planted a few of the seeds for where we’re at now.  Maybe that’s the thesis us orthodox need to think long and hard about, as opposed to the effect of female priests on the sacramental economy, about which the arguments are pretty well known by now.

RE: “if you were referring to Anglo-Catholics who did not view their very act of being in communion with those ordaining female priests as church-dividing, then we agree.”

I think that we are in agreement, though it’s hard to tell through cyberspace . . . ; > )

I agree strongly that ECUSA did its ordination-of-women in a terrible, terrible fashion, both theologically [they didn’t even use the arguments that I have heard from evangelicals] and ecclesially [did it before the GC approved it, for one thing, and in violation of those sacred canons that are now so infallible for them] and pastorally [they forced it down Anglo-Catholic throats, threatened them, and passed a canon requiring it].

All in all, I do not believe that there is one thing that they did right[although please note that I distinguish between the method and process that ECUSA used to introduce WO, and the method and process that WO was introduced into the Anglican Communion, which I have detailed above in an earlier comment].

The issue of women’s ordination was first brought to the communion in 1968 at the Lambeth Conference—by Hong Kong.  That conference wanted it addressed by the Anglican Consultative Council [ACC].

The bishop of Hong Kong [and another bishop, I believe] brought that issue to the ACC in 1970.  By a narrow vote, the ACC stated that Hong Kong could proceed and promised that it would do what it could to keep the issue from being “communion dividing”.

In 1978, the Lambeth Conference passed resolution 21, and in 1988 the Lambeth Conference passed resolution 1 concerning women’s ordination.

Your statement that “The rest of the AC was not consulted” is false.

Ordination of a woman to the presbyterate in Hong Kong occured in 1944, 20+ years before it was brought before the rest of the AC.  In the US, the ordination of women began 2+ years before the approval was given by GC. 

My statement is not false if qualified by saying, “The AC was not consulted before it ordained women to the priesthood.”  My point, though possibly stated poorer than it could have been, is that it is easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission.  Instead of getting approval first, female ordinations took place and then afterward a normalization process ensued.  This tactic is effective and is still being used today.  Someone simply does what they consider to be subjectively “right” or “just” and then proceeds to “dialogue”, “enter a period of reception”, etc. and put off dealing with it until it becomes normative.  Very effective strategy, but it is not exactly a very charitable (or some might even say appropriate) way to handle either ecclesiastical matters or theology.

Hi Chad,

It’s true that often liberal Episcopalians point to the “ordination” of Florence Li Tim-Oi as an example of “how early” women’s ordination entered the Anglican Communion.  ; > ) 

But they are specious in their claims.  Her “ordination” occurred because the Japanese had invaded China and Anglican Christians in China urgently needed someone to minister to them.  Honorably, Florence Li Tim-Oi resigned her license at the end of the war and no further “ordinations” occurred until the issue was formally brought before the communion in 1968.

I do not consider the “ordination” of a female in a time of war, invasion, and chaos in China to be at all a self-serving “get forgiveness, then seek normalization” type of thing, especially since her practice as a “priest” ended at the end of the war, and the matter did not arise again for 24 years.  Had they sought “normalization” after running ahead, they would have proceeded as ECUSA did—“ordination”, then next year “changing the canons”.

It’s clear that the bishop of Japan 1) wished to ordain women, 2) presented the idea to the Anglican Communion, and 3) two years later it was tentatively approved by the Anglican Communion [though it was a narrow vote and heartily disagreed with by many].  It was not, however, communion dividing.  No Province declared impaired or broken communion over it [although that had been feared]—22 have done so in regards to the consecration of Gene Robinson.

Another facinating thread. Sorry to have been gone so long, but I had a wonderful rest.

I dealt with WO and the pre-emptive strike that brought it into being by reminding myself that there were ways to work around it. I considered it to be without theological support, but that the qualification of the presbyter could not detract from the validity of the sacrament if the presbyter were, rightly or wrongly, ordained according to the proper rites. So I stayed. The GC resolution to make WO mandatory broke my heart. I had a place to hide behind my “rationalization” but Bishops were being forced to act outside of their theological convictions. Very sad.

But I agree that for those of us in the pews it is not a communion breaker. We can change parishes, or rationalize when confronted by a female “Presbyter”. What is not fair is the “squeeze” being put on Bishops and Dioceses, who will not be able to hold on to their faith handed down because they cannot count on their next elected Bishop being cleared in the “process”.

I realize that many will disagree with this but I regard women’s ordination as the nose of the camel in the tent door. Now the camel in in the tent and the orthodox are being crowded out. I’m not sure how you argue women’s ordination from Scripture (I do not see any support for it) but for almost two thousand years the uniform practice of the church has been male ordination only. I do not have the chutzpah to say now that the Church has been wrong the whole time and only now has the Holy Spirit corrected the error. I think that, once you are willing to disregard Scripture, and the practice of the Church in one area, it becomes much easier to disregard it in the next-and the next, and the next, and the next…. Matt, I appreciate the courage of your wife in saying that she would give up the priesthood if necessary. I can not speak for others, but for myself at least, this is a communion breaking issue. Let me commend to anyone studying this issue the comprehensive study the AMIA did on this. Here is the link:

http://www.anglicanmissioninamerica.org/index.cfm?id=F2FA6A18-3EBF-4219-B4D9A58C150FF363

It argues the case far better than I can.

cannyscot

Funny that after WO was brokered in a generation ago under the specious concept of “reception” (a fancy name for a process familiarly known as boiling the frog), the topic comes up again and again and again.  Elephant in the living room?  Its more like tyranosaurus rex in the sacristy.
What I find distressing from both Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical participants in this discussion is the tunnel vision view of an exclusively Anglican Communion approval or disapproval.  Does the position of the RC Church and Canonical Orthodox and Oriental Orthodx Churches count for nothing?  Does the firm adherence of the conservative Reformed/Presbyterian and conservative Lutheran offer no guidance?  Self-styled “orthodox” Anglicans who tolerate or advocate WO are seriously out of step with the larger Christian world.  Maybe that is significant.