BREAKING: Constitution Approved for New Province

Well Merry Christmas to us who are in CCP!

Praise God!

Link to the consitution please…..

Let me be the first to vehemently disagree point-by-point with the Anglican Communion Institutionalists’ upcoming condemnation of this Constitution.

Habemus Provinciam already and not yet.

The text is not yet availible

Fair enough,
I’ll wait….

Who did the unanimous voting?  Which is to say, was it Common Cause delegates or the Common Cause “board” or members of each potential church within the new province, or some subset?  Or was it everyone who happened to be in the hall in Wheaton?

Thanks be to God!
I look forward to the press conference stream on AnglicanTV at 5:30 CST.

The Press Conference starts at 5:15PM CDT on Anglican TV.

Common Cause Board members, I think, #7.  Meaning, mostly bishops of the constituent groups.  They seem to have done a lot of communication with their clergy and laity, though, so it’s not like something is being done in the dark.

AnglicanTV’s live stream will appear on our home page at 4:00 central; press conference is scheduled for 4:15.

Well, if that’s so, then that’s one up on the original and much more theologically homogenous “Anglican Church in North America” which failed to accept a common constitutional/canonical structure in 1978.  I still don’t see how a new ACNA can possibly work long-term without a common theology of Orders and Matrimony, e.g. re-marriage and women priests, but it didn’t (yet) fail before it started.

Common Cause Leadership Council: laity, clergy and bishops appointed or elected from each jurisdiction

what an exciting time we are living in

Violent Papist, give it a chance!  Sure, there are things which need to be overcome, and we’ll DO that!  I, however, am not going to give up on what has been done so far, and I say Halleluiah to the adoption of our constitution!  By God’s grace, we will persevere!

Did anyone think it would not be approved?

Violent Papist,
I think that God is still waiting upon us Christians to get it together and fnially come together as He would have us, but instead we continue to walk apart. There has not yet ever been a good model of what Christ has called us all to do and that is to bring all into the knowledge of Him and be one. We continue to work in that and then we as humans get in the way and want our way and well you know the mess we create can get messier….but we try and those who have found it too hard to stay in a church that has strayed so far off of God’s path and teaching feel it necessary to walk apart from heresy and apostasy. We fear God too much to think that staying would be the right thing to do.

Nothing has been perfect save Jesus Christ but as far as churches go none of them have been successful yet in doing what God has asked us to do. So we still walk and wait and try to get it right. How many denominations of Christians are there in the world now? I wonder what God thinks of all of the split off seedlings? I think about that everyday…..and it is an uncomfortable feeling at least for me…..

#16
Ditto.  And I know the vestry of my parish (Uganda) has never been consulted or shown a draft.

Violent Papist,

I agree with Cennydd on this. The disintegration of our province didnt happen over-night and neither will its reformation.

I would add that an assumption that reformation cannot take place or that this church can only become less and not more Orthodox is jumping the gun. I have said it before, but I’ll say it again. We are resurrection people, people! What might be impossible for man to redeem can be redeemed at any moment by the power of Christ. He could also choose to gradually and lovingly convince the WO’ers and the like to voluntarily change their position. I believe that we can do no less than wait patiently for this to happen by remaining in communion with these otherwise solidly orthodox folks, praying for them and being a witness to them. (I’m sure that they feel the same way about us, btw ) We are stronger together and the unity that we have already managed to preserve is a miracle which may be a good sign for us that God’s intention is to sucessfully reconstitute this province. If we can further reunite with those who broke away before GR, that is an even better sign. 

I believe we are nothing but on the way up!

StayinAnglican,
On which “WO-er’s” are you referring? Those in favor or those opposed? Also, as much as I am encouraged by this New Province, I personally and know quite a few more that would not go that far to say that we are on the way up. We are on a way and it is up to God to show us if we have discerned His path correctly by showing us that we are indeed on the way up. Continued prayer is greatly needed and wise discernment that comes only from God.

Evan Miller,

Maybe this is just the initial version. I would think that eventually we will be organized much like we always have been. That means there will be conventions where refinements, amendments etc can be discussed and approved.

One Day Closer,

I was referring to those who are for WO.

Re: We are on the way up!

I said this as an optimistic and hopeful statement having faith in God that if we are on his way then that means that we are on the way up. I pointed to some signs that may point to us being on his path again. Unity is a good sign in my mind. We could always have more, but even a little is a good start.

StayinAnglican,
I am one that you would try to witness to in regards to WO and I have to say that on that issue I will not convert and know many that stand firm on that issue as I do. That will be a huge hurdle for this new province and that is why I say that we are not yet united and that may be one of a few issues that we are divided on that will hinder this new province so I am fearful of saying anything like “we are on the way up.”

Well, we could always make this another WO thread since that hasn’t been discussed much before…

Joking, of course.

Actually Going Home it should be about unity and how we can all be united! I don’t think that sweeping issues that still divide under the carpet is a wise way to start out! It to me is like building a new building with a few defective parts. They weaken the structure and frame.

“The Canons are now being voted on.”  And I’m guessing not a one is named “Dennis.”

The Rt. Rev. Keith L. Ackerman, who resigned last month as Bishop of Quincy, will serve as an assisting bishop in the neighboring Diocese of Springfield. The Rt. Rev. Peter H. Beckwith, Bishop of Springfield, said the Presiding Bishop’s office had been notified that the new position would become effective Dec. 1.
http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2008/12/3/bishop-ackerman-accepts-call-to-springfield

Ackerman seems to have found a remarkable way to “have his cake and eat it too”.

N,B,and S:  I’m with you!

#27
Prayers for the good bishop’s health have clearly been answered. 

May his ministry be where the Lord wants him to be.  Not trying to pick a fight, but does anyone now really think this move wasn’t vetted in advance?

Peace,

#28—just as a reminder, Bp. Keith is responsible (as a visiting bishop) for numerous FIF parishes outside of Quincy, not all of which are leaving or are able to leave at the moment.

And, I would suggest that there’s a good bit more going on with all of this than you’re aware of, so you might be well advised to refrain from jumping to conclusions.

Violent Papist,

Give it a rest! I am from FW and as close as much thought here is to Rome, women are ordained to the deaconate and re-marriage, after divorce, with approval by the bishop after examination of cause and counseling by the parish priest is allowed.  I am an Anglican and not Roman Catholic because of the Reformation.  Rome still has some errors; just ask the Othodox Church.  The Seat of Peter did not predominate as imperium until a few hundred years into the history of the Church which it did by self appointment.  No matter what else is said, that was the major underlying cause for the split of the Eastern and Western Church as far as I understand.

This is all good news today, and there is no way the naysayers can make it bad.

Not that it really matters what they have to say!

It’s wonderful news. Just remember, when the harpies fly in to spew their venom, that they need our prayers, so their eyes will be opened and repent of their sin.

One Day Closer, I agree that it should be addressed, but am always dismayed at the willingness of many to reach a workable accommodation and thus hate to see the subject come up here again. The discussion always seems to circle back to the same juncture; with those in favor of WO being unwilling to contemplate a comprehensive resolution that results in a prospective prohibition of female Priests, and those against WO being unwilling to contemplate a comprehensive resolution that involves a female deaconate or any type of “grandfathering” of ordained clergy. Those favoring WO can provide an argument Scripture provides an implied justification for WO; those against it point out that there is no specific Scriptural warrant for the practice.

I suppose that the default solution is “two bodies within one body” arrangement discussed here, which will kick the can down the road some more.  I can live with that, although I would much prefer a comprehensive solution.  And, frankly, I would like to see women take a lead in finding such a compromise.

Going Home…..sorry but I think that women have led quite enough for quite some time and we are none the better for it as many in the 60’s touted! Women have not made any good significant difference in leadership arenas anymore than a men have. IMHO and it is just that my opinion, women in leadership roles have actually taken us farther down a dark path than making it any better or brighter. I know all will disagree but please when you do please show me where our society has come into a better enlightenment of change for the good of all mankind with women in roles of authority over men.

#21—I wouldn’t count on it.  That’s a sure way to splinter everything up.  It’s happened before, you know.

re: 39
Are we still on for an announcement/press conference from Anglican TV later today?

#39 Greg,
And so the distention begins! So I guess that means that the AnglicanTV live broadcastt is out?

tk+ I intended my comments as a compliment on his cleverness, not an insult.

One Day Closer,
  For what it’s worth, I agree with you that women have led quite enough.  Thank you for being bold enough to say so.

See you all tomorrow. Maybe.

Maybe?  Afraid the Anglican version of the “Plumbers” will come after you for leaking? 

#42
Let us know who they are as well.

ODC,
I concur completely with your #37.

With the sole exception being Margaret Thatcher.

One Day Closer,

Are you pro or against Women’s ordination. Judging from your last comment, you may have misunderstood me.

I am against women’s ordination. How about you?

And pray tell evean miller how is England better today due to Margaret Thatcher? I’m not saying that she was a bad leader but I want to know what she did that has had a lasting effect in the positive upon the society of Great Britain. There are smart and ggod leaders on both sides but what good positive effect did she have that has lasted and changed Great Britain for the better?

I am very much against it and I’m no fan of them being deacons either!

I was one who did believe WO were necessary as I felt there are women who are called to minister. But after seeing the lack of theological values of too many & seeing more women wanting to break barriers than I felt were called by God ( strictly personal judgement) I no longer can support WO. I will not fight against it if the new province allows it but my position will not change back.

What is all this WO stuff? Every time something good (Potentially great) happens, someone comes in to refight the WO battle on a thread that is not about that. I myself am not at all sure WO is a good idea for a “line-of-sucession” denomination, but I am mature enough to want the New Province to succeed, and to defer to the Godly bishops who represent both sides of the issue, and who assure us that they can live under the same tent.

In bringing God’s word to this imperfect world, ‘perfect’ is the enemy of the good, and is the one sure way to insure that the current unbearable TEC situation continues. Very devout people made this same exact mistake back in the late 70s, early 80s, by never knowing when to stop say NO and to start saying, “Yes. Thank you, Lord.”

Mtn Gospel,
Well I for one will fight against it. We need to get back to the basics of what the Apostles were taught by Jesus Christ and they themselves taught. We need to quit trying to push our own agendas in wanting to wear a collar and have title of authority as if it validates a ministry that women already are doing in and around their churches and community as a whole. I, as a woman, do not need a collar to have my ministries that I am involved in be valid. That thinking is hooey!

Because rkreed,
In saying yes to those who ordain women to a collar, it is saying I agree and I do not agree! And to go into this with that unresolved issue on both sides is a weak beam in the frame work. You want it solid then you need to get the issues straight before you build.

#55. I agree 100%. Realistically, I think we can only expect to see some kind of compromise package today that will be aimed to please all “for the time being.” I am genuinely hoping that we will be aqble to revisit the question as things stabilize.

Realistically, I think we can only expect to see some kind of compromise package today that will be aimed to please all “for the time being.”

#55, this is where the problems start. They start “small” with a “compromise” and then they grow from there (like the leaven Jesus warns us of in Scripture). I have to agree completely with ODC’s consistent position. If the foundation is not solid, the building will not stand. Jesus spoke quite strongly and clearly about the “foundation” in many parts of Scripture. We truly need to heed those words. To give in to the wants of the “worldly” (even an iota) is to give satan leverage in starting to destroy the unity of the church. Like ODC says, you really need to go back to the foundation that Jesus started with His church in the NT. The true, basic teachings of the apostles are the only way to go. Sorry if some of you won’t agree, but I strongly believe that.

One Day Closer,

I am a woman too and I feel the same way. What I want to know from you is are you willing to be patient and work for a compromise that can potentially, if slowly, return us to a biblical church order?

If you can do that, like I am willing to do that, then there isn’t much for us to disagree about.

I for one am willing to compromise on female deaconesses and to grandfathering those otherwise orthodox women who are now ordained if a halt is made to any new ordinations and if these same women are not permitted to become bishops.

Perhaps the next step after that would be a greater committment by the church to restore women’s monastic orders and to also perhaps create or strengthen existing lay orders for women. Above all, women should remain equal members of the laity in those decisions where the laity have a voice. I would also want women to remain as teachers/preachers, missionaries and evangelists which they can do perfectly well as lay people ie no ordination necessary. 

Does that sound like a plan you could live with?

If you all end up squabbling over w/o which this thread is degenerating into then the future for common cause does not look good.  Worth thinking about before becoming so trenchant. Nothing would please unfriendly eyes more, who will say: “I told you so”.
FWIW

And so begin the fractures in the new province.

Please don’t allow revisionists to play divide and conquer here. It’s plain that is what their intent is.

Don’t sound so smug Optimus. We know that your advanced age and your decades of work in the ministry give you a unique insight into these things, but you might have a thing or two to learn still (like the rest of us).

What I want to know from you is are you willing to be patient and work for a compromise that can potentially, if slowly, return us to a biblical church order?

A “compromise” is not Biblical. You can’t serve two masters. We need to choose either Jesus, or satan. Which will you choose? Any church that compromises on God’s truth will never return to a “Biblical church order”. History tells us that quite clearly. Even in the first century Paul had to warn the Corinthians to beware for the false teachers and block them (they were already starting to enter the true Christian Church). We need to do the same now. Any who are willing to accept even a shred of compromise truly need to examine the strength of their faith.

StayinAnglican,
No! I will not compromise my beliefs and the scriptures and the teaching of Jesus Christ. I am in complete agreement with Mugsie1 above…. To compromise will only weaken the foundation and the frame of the building and allow satan a foothold to widen the gap!

ODC,
  We are in agreement. Seeing 1st hand the desire to break barriers by some who are capable of passing course work ( men & women for that matter)  but being so theologically inept & the agenda minded have soured me of any belief that some are called. This may cause me to get pot shots from some but I consider WO to have done serious damage to the church, blaming them to the state we are in now.
  I will rely on wiser God given minds than mine concerning the new province but I will not be in support of WO again.

Actually “One Day Closer” (54) said it best: “We need to quit trying to push our own agendas…” AMEN.

The only agenda I am pushing is to rally as many orthodox Anglicans as possible in North America (whatever their position on WO) around an effective New Orthodox Province.
There is certainly room for all the orthodox, whatever their position on WO. Or we can argue endlessly among ourselves, which should make the revisionists very happy. That is what happened once before.

#58 optimus prime,
They were already there that is my point. But many want to ignore them and sweep them under the carpet!

farstrider and mari,

I am not being smug; I am pointing out a real concern that people have been warning about. The creation of a new province runs the risk of seriously fracturing the conservatives who join it. And I don’t have to rely on my own ministry experience to realize this; history makes it quite clear.

If people want to create a new province, they need to accept the reality (as witness to above) that there is not unity on what this new province is going to look like theologically. There is concern for greater division. I actually would really not like to see that happen. My comment is one of frustration, not smugness, that no matter what we seem to do as Anglicans, we end up splitting in several directions.

To ODC et al:  Now is not the time.  Really.  Furthermore, if this is really a make or break issue for you, I suggest you simply find the nearest ACC, APCK, UECNA or APA parish.

mari,
I am not a revisionist! I am a traditional orthodox Christian that is in the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin. Be careful who you call a revisionist mari!

One Day Closer (and others).

I feel safe in saying that I am as committed to the Church’s traditional teaching on holy orders as anyone here. Nonetheless, I believe we will be seeing a compromise solution coming out of today’s meetings. My hope is that this is “for the time being” and that we will be able, as a Province, to look at this in greater depth later.

While I agree that we need to lay the right foundations. it would be a grave error to think that all of the foundations are being laid today. Until then, pray (as will I) that God will help our leaders make the right decisions… counter-cultural as those decisions may need to be.

Optimus Prime,

What fractures? Is discussion a fracture? or is it healthy? And by that I don’t mean discussion as a useless delaying tactic either.

I think that this can be discussed at this time in a manner in which the participants are much wiser due to the years since WO was begun. I believe that if those opposed to WO are willing to offer something in return for WO as opposed to simply digging in, then we might make some progress towards more unity on this issue. I personally see signs of a willingness to offer women ordinands or those who feel called to ordination and their supporters something in exchange for their willingness to revist the issue. A wiser and creative approach could succeed where other approaches have failed.

In other words I see no reason to be so cynical at this point. Do you really think that women can not be satisfied with something other (not less) than ordination? Do you really think that otherwise orthodox women are willing to wreck the unity of the new province over this issue? Vice versa, do you think that those opposed are so unwilling to accept a step or steps in their direction that they would rather see the whole thing go down in flames?

Personally, I have a little more confidence in our decision makers than that.

One day closer, yes I can see that.

It is my hope to work from within the ACoC; however, it is also my hope than any new province will not simply break apart. Far from attempting to be smug as suggested by farstrider, I fear what others have warned about with the new province; it is disheartening to see those differences already there being quite divisive already.

67 . If now is not the time to establish a true orthodox church, then when? Now is the time to remain true to the Word of God & not the ambiguous word. We will never see an truly Christian Anglican Orthodox church if we do not establish one NOW!

fastrider,
Oh Really!!!! Well, when is a good time then since no time in the past has it been dealt with!? Ignore it if you wish and put your head in the sand if you want, but I won’t and a time in the future (sooner rather than later) it will creep it’s ugly head and you will see another split. We need to get the issues dealt with then build!

If now is not the time to establish a true orthodox church, then when?

Yesterday.

Oops! Sorry fastrider, my comment above was for AndrewA! My apologies! But by the way…..I do bot believe in compromise when it comes to Jesus Christ and the Scriptures. If you compromise then you are all agreeing to disagree and the ordaining of women will continue and we ill be sitting in teh same boast as we have been. Bad idea!

StayinAnglican,

Do you really think that women can not be satisfied with something other (not less) than ordination? Do you really think that otherwise orthodox women are willing to wreck the unity of the new province over this issue? Vice versa, do you think that those opposed are so unwilling to accept a step or steps in their direction that they would rather see the whole thing go down in flames?

I don’t know. However, I know some female postulants who have thought about joining the Network Churches in Canada. I don’t know what they would do if they couldn’t be ordained. Presumably they are at seminary pursuing an M.Div because they have felt called to ordained ministry. Is the call to ordained ministry really just a human determination such that one could simply say ‘oh I guess I’m not really called to ordained ministry because our structure has changed?’ I can’t really say for sure as I don’t know enough about conservative women across Canada and the US to know how they would respond.

I really hope especially that this issue does not become a divisive one; I do worry that it would though.

So StayinAnglican we need to barter the WO issue. I’ll give XYZ if you get rid of WO? Something like that? Sounds like casting lots!

Mugsie,
If compromise is unbiblical, then what is consensus? What about discussion, patience, forbearance etc.
I am talking about steps here. Not something permanent. I am all for the “against” orthodox working faithfully and diligently to sort out the order of this church. But it seems to me that we have two choices. We insist on going back 20 or so years all at once without any alternative offered to those “across the aisle” or we can arrive at the same place in steps and by offering the other side something positive in exchange for their compromise on this issue.

It seems to me that option one would only result in an implosion while option two would actually stand a chance of getting us where we want to be.

I believe that +Iker is thinking along these lines as it is and I find that greatly encouraging. In this direction I believe there is a sensible and pragmatic solution to the issue as opposed to the current alternatives of either division or more of the same. I am willing to give it a chance to succeed.

#76, optimus prime, you may want to remember this verse in Scripture. “2 Cor 11:14     And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light.”

Satan, himself, transforms himself into an angel of light to deceive many into thinking it’s the Holy Spirit working in them. We must test all things with Scripture to make sure our “desires” are not from satan. Since there is no support for women priests in Scripture, then I can’t accept that God is “calling” these women to ordination. That means it can only be coming from his opponent, “satan”.

How disappointing. If our golden opportunity is being wrecked (and I am not sure that it is), it is certainly not being wrecked by those who favor WO, nor by those who are willing to ‘broaden the tent’ to make room for both positions on the issue.

What is particularly sad is that there are already (as pointed out above) so many existing tiny Anglican splinters that felt/feel the same ‘no compromise’ way on WO.

ODC, but isn’t casting lots biblical? Isn’t that how the Apostles chose Judas’ replacement?

Farstrider,

My hope is that this is “for the time being” and that we will be able, as a Province, to look at this in greater depth later.

Are you concerned at all that if a compromise is made, women’s ministry might become entrenched such that it would be impossible to go ‘backward?’ I have asked the question of others: supposedly WO is still ‘in reception’ in the AC; however, WO has become entrenched in the practices of the Church that you really couldn’t go backward at this point. Do you see this as being an issue with the new province?

Slightly OT. Judas’s replacement is very near and dear to me btw. He’s not only the patron of my parish but he is the first saint this converted Lutheran/Baptist ever prayed with!

Just thought I would enthuse a little. Sometimes I can’t help it!

Yes and those who cast them for Jesus robe! You pick your own lot and I’ll stay away from lots altogether. I don’t believe in gambling!

In regards to rkreed above, if we should broaden the tent for WO then we should have been willing to broaden the tent for Gene Robinson and Susan Russell and Elizabeth Kaeton as well. Once you begin to broaden the you must continue to do so.

Mugsie1,

According to some people there is no Scriptural support for WO; but according to others there certainly is. For example, the AC (working through the political processes of Lambeth and ACC) it was discerned that Scripture was not explicitly clear (like it is for no SSB/marriages). Hence the reason that back in 68 the Communion went ahead and said you can ordain women but provision must be made for those who cannot accept this teaching. Also, there are other churches, the Pentecostals, some Baptists, Methodists and others that don’t ‘ordain’ (maybe the Methodists do I’m not sure) but that have women in teaching and preaching roles.

Once our new province is up and running, our bishops need to give some very serious consideration to the reactivation of the Order of Deaconess, along with the phasing out of Women’s Ordination via attrition.  Women have always had so much to offer the Church, and this is a way for us to put their considerable talents to a good use.  God bless ‘em, we NEED ‘em!

One Cay Closer,

I’m glad I refreshed before I posted my response to #73.

I’m not happy with compromise either, but I think that’s what we’re going to get, at least at the beginning. I’ve grieved over W.O. and I have fought against it, both online and in face-to-face encounters with some of those who might be able to make a difference. Here’s why I’m willing to be a little patient, though. The context in which these discussions can (and must) now be held is a context completely unlike that from the contexts we have known (TEC and Anglican Church of Canada).

Imagine being able to sit down and have a proper discussion about W.O. that is genuinely informed by Scripture and Tradition, and is held between people who actually care what Scripture and Tradition have to say!

We’ve learned to distrust over the past few years/decades. I think we need to be willing to extend a little more trust to the men who are seeking to lead us.

#78, compromise on what the Bible states is not Biblical. I state that again. Yes, human beings compromise on many things all the time. However, when it comes to God’s truth, and HIS church, then compromise has no place. I’m firm on that.

You talk about “steps”. I only see you leaving room for satan to work in such an approach. Jesus said the gate to HIS Kingdom is the “straight” or “narrow” gate. This can also be interpreted as the “hard” or “difficult” route. To follow Jesus is not the “easy” route. It’s the “hard” route. That’s why few will find it and stick with it. Human nature tends to follow the crowd. As true Christians, we are to let go of that human nature and put on the cloak of righteousness. It’s not the way of human nature, but the “hard” way.

As for an “implosion” then I guess one who looks at it that way has weak faith. For me, if this is truly of God, then it won’t fall (implode). Jesus promised HIS church would forever stand against the gates of hell. I guess we need to wait and see if this is the work of God or not. THAT’s where “patience” comes in. God will reveal HIS will to us if we wait on HIM. That’s where I stand.

Isn’t that how the Apostles chose Judas’ replacement?

By casting lots, the Apostles violated Jesus’ clear instruction to WAIT until the Holy Spirit showed up.  Those guys.  Sheesh.  Jesus chose Judas’ replacement.  His name was Saul of Tarsus.

ODC
  I agree again. We cannot set vague boundaries to be hashed/watered down over time. Set the path straight with scripture & those who wish to continue with WO can stay in the old regime. I for one do not wish to make the same mistake twice ( for once).

Is the event going to be recorded? I’m working tonight so I won’t be able to see it, but will I be able to catch it later? It’s happened before that though live-steamed, it was not recoreded, and I don’t want to miss this any more than I have to. PLEASE!!!

Yours in Christ,
jacob

#76 (Optimus),

I’m always a bit puzzled by posters who can quote reams of Catholic theologians in one context and then start appealing to subjective feelings in another context in order to support something that the historic Churches have always opposed.

Cynnedd,

Your comment is sound and welcome.  I have long believed that much of this issue has come about because of the elimination of appropriate spiritual functions for women within the church.  Restoration of the biblical order of deaconnesses would, I believe, go a long way toward resolving the question.

ODC writes: “if we should broaden the tent for WO then we should have been willing to broaden the tent for Gene Robinson and Susan Russell and Elizabeth Kaeton as well. Once you begin to broaden the you must continue to do so.”  So why shouldn’t we only have Levites as priests?  Too far back?  Well how about only ethnically Jewish men born in the Holy Land?  Accepting WO does not imply accepting non-celibate homosexuals as priests.  I have experienced the ministry of some outstanding women priests.  Canon Mary Hays in Pittsburgh comes to mind.  I understand your objection but it is an not shared by some of the very primates whose recognition we seek.

One Day Closer,

I hear your concern. But I think we need to be nuanced about how those two issues are different. Neither was simply decided autonomously. WO came about through the issue having been brought to Lambeth beginning in 48, finally in 68, after having been considered, studied, prayed about, etc both by the ACC and by the bishops and their flock for 20 years, it was determined at Lambeth that Scripture was not explicitly clear on the issue. Thus WO still remains ‘in reception’ wherein those who feel called to ordain women can; however those who cannot accept their leadership should have access to alternative oversight.

On the other hand, after 25 years of Scriptural discernment, Lambeth 98 made it clear that SSB are explicitly not consistent with Scripture and are therefore not allowed.

The tent broadening then must be thought of with this nuance in mind. It is Scriptural discernment by the whole body that should (and I emphasize should given what TEC and the ACoC did) determine whether the tent is broadened. I just want to make sure we don’t cast these two issues in the same pot because liberals have done that in an attempt to justify their case and it is just plainly historically wrong.

From here

Statement from The Episcopal Church
The Rev. Dr. Charles K. Robertson, Canon to Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, has issued the following:

We will not predict what will or will not come out of this meeting, but simply continue to be clear that The Episcopal Church, along with the Anglican Church of Canada and the La Iglesia Anglicana de Mexico, comprise the official, recognized presence of the Anglican Communion in North America.

And we reiterate what has been true of Anglicanism for centuries: that there is room within The Episcopal Church for people with different views, and we regret that some have felt the need to depart from the diversity of our common life in Christ.

The Rev. Dr. Charles K. Robertson
Canon to the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church
December 3, 2008

Mugsie1,

RE: 79 Is that really the only other explaination?

I have been going on about this for some time, and I may be alone in this as well, but what would you call a woman who feels called to monasticism? Is she called by Satan? or by God?

My point is that we lost the middle ground that used to be exclusively represented by the female monastic orders but could be just as easily represented by some other arrangement. Holy and/or devout women can and do feel God’s call to a life that is both part of the laity (as women’s religious orders are) and yet a separate calling within that group. But if there is no alternative calling for women who legitmately feel this call, then envy of the priesthood results. Then it may be that Satan steps in diverting an otherwise godly desire but not before.

What we must do is restore that middle place where a woman can be both laity and can also pursue a higher or deeper calling apart from it.

This is what I am advocating that we return to. This is what I think we should be offering women who feel such a call. We don’t have to have a situation where we have on the one hand an all male priesthood and on the other hand women out in the cold feeling frustrated in their godly sense of calling. We can arrange a fitting place for everyone that is both biblical and traditional if only we restore what was once the better option for women.

Optimus,
There is no disagreement among the potential members of the new province that does not exist in the wider Communion to a much greater degree.  So lay off.  The constitution of the new province is now a fact.  There is no point to arguing whether it is a good idea.  No one put forward any alternative.  So, it remains the best (and only) way forward for those who have already left TEC and the ACoC.  Leave people be to order the church as best they can.

Jacobsladder,

Kevin usually tapes everything he live-streams; a recorded version is usually up on his site a couple of days after the live event.

On the other hand, after 25 years of Scriptural discernment, Lambeth 98 made it clear that SSB are explicitly not consistent with Scripture and are therefore not allowed.

Optimus,
If Lambeth ‘98 had said exactly the opposite, what would you believe about the SSB issue?

farstrider,

I am not talking about feelings; I am speaking of the actual concrete practices of discernment that one must go through in order to ‘test’ their call. Now you may say that in such a liberal context of course women would receive positive affirmation of themselves called to ordained ministry because it would be affirmed by those who believe that WO is ok. I guess that’s true. But as I have written above, it is the catholic practice of the Anglican Church’s discernment of Scripture going back to 1948 that decided that Scripture was not explicitly clear as to the issue of WO.

Processes to test the discernment of men and women as to their call to ordination were put into place in those provinces and dioceses that affirmed WO. The processes do not test men and women differently; they are the same. Therefore it is not a matter of ‘feeling;’ rather it is a matter of the processes of catholic discernment of the Anglican Communion.

#87 fastrider,
I hear what you are saying but the revisionist and those who are strong pushers for WO got into the church before what’s to stop them now with a gap already made in the building?

And we reiterate what has been true of Anglicanism for centuries: that there is room within The Episcopal Church for people with different views

No doubt about that. Druids, pagans, Muslims, atheists… and that’s just in the clergy order.

See, Dr. Robertson… that’s a BUG, not a feature.

[95] optimus prime

[I]t was determined at Lambeth that Scripture was not explicitly clear on the issue.

Oh, Scripture is explicitly clear on the subject alright.  It’s just that many would prefer it not to be.  It just takes time to hammer Scripture into a pre-fit mold.  Spend any time listening to the pro-WO arguments and you quickly come to see the reality of this. 

WO is highly correlated with liberal female ministers, and the reason is obvious.  Support for WO requires a generally compromised view of Scripture.  The more orthodox the woman, the less likely she is to demand the role that Scripture keeps from her.  So to compromise on this issue is to lay down with the very desire which caused the problems with TEC in the first place - the desire to warp Scripture to fit a pre-determined culturally approved outcome.  It is our western egalitarianism that drives the cause of WO.  But western egalitarianism is not a good replacement for sound exegesis of Scripture. 

carl

StayinAnglican,

I agree that there has to be a place for laywomen (and men) to minister in the Church. Holy Orders exist, in part, to equip the people of God to do just this (both within the fellowship of the Church and within the world). You raise an important point: Those who oppose women’s ordination are not opposed to women using the gifts that God has given them, nor are they saying that God does not call women to serve him. They are only saying that a call to serve God is different than a call to Holy Orders.

I like the idea of having a monastic renaissance; I also think we need to see a greater variety of lay-ministries forming in our churches. God being gracious, we could see a real flowering of the Catholic/Evangelical heritage which belongs to Anglicanism—the best from both worlds.

I would have believed their discernment to have been wrong. It wouldn’t make me separate from them though. The discernment of the Church has often been in error throughout history; should we break away from those who make errors (even if it is the greatest part of the Church)? I mean, hey maybe I’m wrong. But if we do need to break away even if there is great error, we’ll end up with churches of one person. The other worry I have is that we start trying to construct our own churches according to our incomplete view of God’s will and so what we perceive to be God’s will is really only our incomplete interpretation of it; and in our concern to justify our own existence, we fail to open our hearts and minds to God’s correction because we’re so concerned to be establishing and defending ourselves that we put up this front of living by God’s ‘true Word’ as though are more ‘pure’ or ‘true’ than other churches.

But Carl,

The Scriptural discernment concerning WO came about by all male bishops and clergy from 1948-1968; women played almost no role in making definitive decisions about it; it was the ACC and Lambeth who made the decision in response to a request to consider the matter from the province of Hong Kong. It didn’t being at all in North America nor did it happen there until the 70s.

#106,

And I am saying that their discernment was wrong about women’s ordination. What’s possible for you in one context is equally possible for me in another. And note, no one is saying we should break from the Anglican Communion over this issue; we are saying we now have the opportunity to do the right thing (according to the teaching of the historic Churches and, I would say, Scripture).

Link to the AP story (on yahoo’s front page):
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081203/ap_on_re/rel_episcopal_split

#107 optimus prime,
Don’t think for one minute that there were not women behind those bishops helping them to make that decision! Those women got what they a had been pushing the men for for years to get their collars and look where we are now! The homosexuals went forward the same way the women did!

#56

I for one am willing to compromise on female deaconesses and to grandfathering those otherwise orthodox women who are now ordained if a halt is made to any new ordinations and if these same women are not permitted to become bishops.

Before you commit to such a compromise of your faith perhaps you should ask the Anglo-Catholics in the COE how their compromise has worked out for them.
#67-
Love to. There is a beautiful APCK parish which celebrates High Choral Mass the most reverant Eucharist I’ve ever had the priviledge to witness.
http://www.saintannchapel.org/
But,we live three hours one way away and we can only attend as a very special day a couple of times a year. Our Diocese is conservative and Southern Cone but my wife and I have already seen a slow but sure Evangelistic shadow in what was once a devout Catholic worship service even in Rite One. When our Bishop, who started as a Catholic, moves on to retirement (just turned 70) we fear that we will have been marginalized out. We love the spirit of GAFCON which our diocese participated in and we understand the vital importance of the new province but we also are staring at the fact that the faith that we are defined by will be leaving as well as we become more protesant than catholic. Yes we oppose W/O because we know that is where it all starts. We revere women of grace and talent who serve God’s kingdom…but I will nerver call her Father or Bishop to my last breath.
Intercessor

God forbids women from becoming ministers in His Church. However, He does allow them to serve as deaconesses and in other capacities. God sets the standard. He has long ago determined that men be the leaders in their families and in the Church.

In I Corinthians 14:34, Paul admonished, “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also says the law.”

I Timothy 2:12 adds, “ But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over a man, but to be in silence.”

I Peter 3:1-4 shows a beautiful aspect of such humble submission: “Likewise, you wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation [conduct] of the wives; while they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; but let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.”

In other words, women can be deacons and teach “women” but cannot teach “men”. God made that decision. We have no authority to question or change that, regardless of what “Lambeth” or any human council may say on the matter.

The Lay Order of Deaconess is the one I referred to in my earlier post.  Just so there’s no confusion here.

No confusion on my end.

[107] optimus prime

The Scriptural discernment concerning WO came about by all male bishops and clergy

Why is this relevant?  The fact the WO leads to predominantly unorthodox female clergy (and it is a fact) was meant only to illustrate the sub-biblical nature of the position.  It was not intended to suggest that only women push for WO.  Women who are orthodox will shy away from WO.  Female clergy will therefore tend to be self-selected from a predominantly liberal population.  You see the results all around you.

I will say it again.  The driving force behind WO is our cultural egalitarianism.  This predisposition (obviously) does not stop at boundaries of gender.  It is in fact the reason we are so quickly dissolving all the boundaries of gender in our culture - WO included.  But this predisposition is not based upon Scripture.  It is being imposed upon Scripture to our detriment.

carl

Carl,

It’s a pleasure to be able to say, I agree with you completely.

Well, I guess we’ll see how the issue plays out in the new province. Hopefully it won’t divide; obviously if a clear majority who form the new province feel it should not happen, it won’t. Obviously even conservatives differ on the issue so Hopefully that won’t be a point of serious contention.

I’m curious about a few things:
1. is WO an issue of ‘essentials?’
2. if it is for you, why not join the Anglican Catholic Church (if you don’t want to go RC or EO)
3. Are there any other big key concerns that you guys think need to be ironed out theologically in order to mitigate the dangers of fracturing as you’re trying to build and figure out what your structure, ministry, etc will look like?

Oh Really!!!! Well, when is a good time then since no time in the past has it been dealt with!?

67 . If now is not the time to establish a true orthodox church, then when? Now is the time to remain true to the Word of God & not the ambiguous word. We will never see an truly Christian Anglican Orthodox church if we do not establish one NOW!

This was already dealt with in 1977 by the Affirmation of St Louis.  Anglican churches that do not broke any compromise on Women’s Ordination already exist.  One even calls itself the Anglican Orthodox Church.  I’m not saying your concerns are not important.  I’m simply giving honest advice, one Christian to another, that if this is a non-negotiable issue for you, options already exist. 

However, when I say “now is not the time” I mean that now is the time to rejoice at one step forward in the reunification formation of a new GAFCON province, and that now is the problem to thank God for what you have and pray for your new province to continue to grow in wisdom and statue in the grace of God.

you want, but I won’t and a time in the future (sooner rather than later) it will creep it’s ugly head and you will see another split. We need to get the issues dealt with then build!

Why split to form yet another Anglican church that does not ordain women when so many already exist? 

Now I say this as someone not currently in the New Province or any group likely to join it, and who may eventually find myself in the Eastern Orthodox Church or the Anglican Catholic Church.  However, I think it more productive at this time to take thanks in any blessings thank come to my brothers and sisters in the CCP, not bring up reasons for contention.

Carl,

Why is this relevant?

The reason my response was relevant was because you intimated that the process was driven by the egalitarian west (I responded that it began in the east in fact where I don’t believe there is such a drive for western egalitarianism, particularly not in the 40s, 50s, 60s). This was also an issue decided upon by the whole Communion, not by the west only (see your own comments below). 

WO is highly correlated with liberal female ministers, and the reason is obvious.  Support for WO requires a generally compromised view of Scripture.  The more orthodox the woman, the less likely she is to demand the role that Scripture keeps from her.  So to compromise on this issue is to lay down with the very desire which caused the problems with TEC in the first place - the desire to warp Scripture to fit a pre-determined culturally approved outcome.  It is our western egalitarianism that drives the cause of WO.  But western egalitarianism is not a good replacement for sound exegesis of Scripture.

To be honest, I’m not overly concerned about whether or not someone here can prove according to their own argument whether or not women should be ordained. My original concern, that still exists, is that I observed as people have warned that there are issues, such as WO that are going to create some real theological challenges to hold together in some sort of unified province. If compromise is made in order to establish some stability, the danger becomes that those ‘temporary decisions’ become entrenched such that changing them creates fractures. This thread is simply points to the reality of this possibility for fracture being a concern for the new province.

As I’ve said above, I am choosing to stay within the ACoC for the time being; however, I do not wish to see the new province splinter; that would be an uncharitable and unfaithful hope and it is not one I hold. So I only point out that which others have already warned about is seemingly already being expressed by those who seem to be members of or wanting to become members of this new province. If people are going to enter into this new province, my hope is that it will not fracture and end up creating anger and bitterness so that people just get frustrated and end up leaving the Church completely.

“and that now is the problem to thank God”

That should be now is the “time”.

Carl,

Women who are orthodox will shy away from WO.

that’s a rather presumptuous statement to make. Do you know the hearts and minds of people as they are oriented to God’s Word? It would seem that only God knows this. However, I really don’t think this is a fruitful argument. I’m not saying that I don’t question whether women should be ordained; however that really isn’t the issue here; there are many, many threads that concern this issue. Your arguments are no more or less convincing than are NT Wright’s. No individual’s arguments contain complete knowledge and understanding of God’s will; which is why God works through the whole Church to correct our even our consensual errors of interpretation of his word. Anyway, I’ve already talked enough about this.

My concern rather, is that this issue or others like it where there is not theological agreement either become so contentious that they fracture the new province into splinters, or that compromises may be made to build stable ground only to see these issues become entrenched so that the new province splinters down the road.

ARTICLE VIII: THE LIMITS OF PROVINCIAL AUTHORITY
1. The member dioceses, clusters or networks (whether regional or affinity-based) and those
dioceses banded together as jurisdictions shall each maintain all authority they do not yield to
the Province by their own consent. The powers not delegated to the Province by this
constitution nor prohibited by this Constitution to these dioceses or jurisdictions, are reserved
to these dioceses or jurisdictions respectively.
2. The Province shall make no canon abridging the authority of any member dioceses, clusters or
networks (whether regional or affinity-based) and those dioceses banded together as
jurisdictions with respect to its practice regarding the ordination of women to the diaconate or
presbyterate.

ARTICLE XII: OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY
All church property, both real and personal, owned by each member congregation now and in the
future is and shall be solely and exclusively owned by each member congregation and shall not be
subject to any trust interest or any other claim of ownership arising out of the canon law of this
Province. Where property is held in a different manner by any diocese or grouping, such
ownership shall be preserved.

To which the Archbishop of Canterbury has responded as follows: http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-06-30-anglican-conservative_N.htm

ARTICLE II: THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE PROVINCE
1. The founding entities of the Anglican Church in North America are the members of the
Common Cause Partnership namely:
The American Anglican Council
The Anglican Coalition in Canada
The Anglican Communion Network
The Anglican Mission in the Americas
The Anglican Network in Canada
The Convocation of Anglicans in North America
<bb>Forward in Faith – North America</bl>
The Missionary Convocation of Kenya
The Missionary Convocation of the Southern Cone
The Missionary Convocation of Uganda
The Reformed Episcopal Church
2. New dioceses, clusters or networks (whether regional or affinity-based) may be added to the
Province by invitation of the Provincial Council, pursuant to the process outlined by canon.

StayinAnglican, a word of reason (from a woman!).  I pray that those at the top have the wisdom that you display. The ones that I know seem to have such, so I am hopeful.

You don’t have to compromise principles to compromise on tactics, as long as the path is correct. 

There are some that are not going to be part of this new Anglican thing, for various reasons. Thats OK.

Notwithstanding ACI protests to the contrary, the ABC has always been an ally of TEC’s revisionists leaders and will fight this conservative movement like all others. So be it.

Unfortuantly I made my optomistic post before I read the draft.  Now, if you really want something to stress about, look at the bold in my comment 125. 

Oh boy…

Expect the Title VI Review Committee to start writing up papers for Albany, Dallas, South Carolina…

Either that or the Anglican Communion Network is going to get much smaller much quicker.

carl, and everyone convinced that it is virtually a principle of physics that WO leads to and is driven by liberal, Scripture-denying, predominately female clergy, I will repeat my comment from another thread here about a month ago.  Only one counter-example is necessary to disprove something as an ironclad principle, as a salvation issue.

The Nazarene Church has accepted WO since its inception 100 years ago, and you will find that liberal theology, Scriptural revisionism and deconstructionism and the gay rights lobby have found zero traction there, and are not likely ever to in the future.  Their acceptance of WO is every bit as much on Scriptural grounds as is your rejection of it.  One major factor in their different result likely is that they did not use acceptance of a fait accompli as a wedge to force acceptance of less and less Scripturally-based innovations.

This is not a “by their fruits ye shall know them” argument.  Look up Nazarene doctrine, read or listen to Nazarene sermons (exemplified at http://www.nfcn.org Nashville 1st Nazarene Church) look at missionary, outreach and service work far out of all proportion to their small numbers, and you will find orthodoxy and a fervent love for the Lord Jesus Christ that are a standard at which any of us might worthily aim.

#128 Andrew

Either that or the Anglican Communion Network is going to get much smaller much quicker.

My money is on the latter.

#128—can you get a definitive answer re: who is in the ‘Anglican Communion Network’? This would be useful. A formal enumeration of dioceses involved in this effort. Thanks. You appear to have a list in your head, but what does the formal statement mean and include?

Seitz, surely you know what dioceses are in the Anglican Communion Network, or know how to look this up.  The provisional Consitution and Canons that have been posted make it VERY unclear what the status is of those that are members of one of the listed organizations yet still members of TEC.  That is Not a Good Thing.

As a document for those outside of TEC, this is a good first start, though I had hoped for the erasure of the differentiation between the Southern Cone, Kenya, Nigeria etc jurisidictions.  I still expect this will come in time.  However, I fear that now is the time when the Communion Partners dioceses still in the ACN will be forced to make a public break from the ACN.

http://www.acn-us.org/

One Day Closer: your question about leadership arenas where women have made significant improvements can be answered readily in six letters: A-L-A-S-K-A .

#132 Do you actually mean to say that SC, Dallas, et al are formally involved in this? Can you get formal confirmation of this? I am Canon Theologian in the Diocese of Dallas. My sense is that very few of the erstwhile ACN bishops have been consulted. But perhaps you have better information? For quite a long time now, it has been clearly stated that the use of ‘ACN’ is confusing at best. This is why it would be far preferable to ask the principals just what use of the term ‘ACN’ entails—can this question be put by those who are in favor of this initiative? Kind regards.

BTW, I did as you asked and clicked on the link. It shows a category ‘diocese’ but nothing happens when one clicks on it. It appears to be otiose.
Don’t get me wrong. This is not a time for competition. It IS a time for accurate statements, clear data, facts, etc. If we are supposed to pray and reflect seriously as Anglican Christians, it is important that the facts are stated clearly.

Dr Seitz,

Click on the linked page again and go to the bottom of the page. The dioceses are listed on the page itself.

You must be having a long night.

Scroll down to lower left hand corner.  You see:
Dioceses
Albany
Central Florida
Dallas
Fort Worth
Pittsburgh
Quincy
Rio Grande
San Joaquin
South Carolina
Springfield

My sense is that very few of the erstwhile ACN bishops have been consulted. But perhaps you have better information? For quite a long time now, it has been clearly stated that the use of ‘ACN’ is confusing at best.

Good question.  No, I don’t have better info.  You might want to suggest to your bishop that he gives Duncan a ring.

I’m all for a New Province, but I don’t like the way this appears to leave those in still TEC with two masters.

http://www.united-anglicans.org/about/provisional-constitution.html

AndrewA,

So it says: “Ten Episcopal dioceses are affiliated with the Network” So are the dioceses themselves actually affiliated with the network or just parishes and individual clergy members within those dioceses? How does one identify if a Church is a network Church or just a Church within the diocese which is within TEC? Is there an actual parish list that is or that will be made available to the public on the website? Thanks.

The Anglican Communion Network has been around for years.  I’m not sure why its composition is news to anyone.  What is unclear is what is the Anglican Church in North America means when it claims the Anglican Communion Network as a founding member.

Andrew—Dallas and other dioceses of the erstwhile ‘network’ are not under any obligation at all—why should they be?—to clarify why ACN is listed—as you choose to emphasize—as part of a new province. That listing comes from new province promo.
ACN has for many months been a questionable coalition.
Can you research this and determine when the new province people speak of ACN what it is that they mean? This is a simple question.

[129] Milton

carl, and everyone convinced that it is virtually a principle of physics that WO leads to and is driven by liberal, Scripture-denying, predominately female clergy

That’s not an accurate characterization of my position.  I said that supporters of WO are driving the cause against the explicit instruction of Scripture.  They are deliberately warping the text in order to make it fit a preconceived outcome.  WO is not derived from sound exegesis.  It is derived despite sound exegesis.  You have only to observe the arguments made by supporters of WO in order to see this.  Eventually they must get around to explaining why Paul was wrong in those verses that Mugsie quoted earlier.  That is a very dangerous attitude that once established is very difficult to limit.  That some organizations have managed to limit the extent of the corruption is encouraging.  But it does not indicate that WO is not a corrupt position in and of itself, nor that the damage will remain limited.  A little leaven can corrupt the whole lump.  And organizations that presume to ‘correct’ Scripture usually move on to bigger projects.

carl

Seitz, I’m just a grad student in Virginia.  I do not have direct access to any of the principals involved in this or any information other than what is being made available online.  I’m sorry I can’t be of more assitance.  My honest, simple advice is to talk to your bishop about this. 

This is the PDF version of the consitution.

http://www.anglicanessentials.ca/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/constitution.pdf

[121] optimus prime

[T]hat’s a rather presumptuous statement to make.

It would be presumptuous for me to make such a statement about any single woman.  But in the aggregate it is quite accurate.  Statistically, women clergy are far more liberal than their male counterparts.

carl

Carl two questions:
1. who determines whether exegesis is sound?
2. How do we determine whether exegesis is sound? i.e. what are the markers of sound exegesis vs. not sound exegesis?

#118 AndrewA
Regarding going to another Anglican Church….I have and my husband and I do once a month we travel 6 hours round trip to go since it is the closest to us! It is St. Ann’s in Palo Alto in the Province of Christ the King. So in a flat answer to you….we kind of need one a bit closer in order to be full members to be effective for us and us the them.

Optimus,

I’d be really interested in hearing how you would answer your own question (147). I’m starting to get the idea you don’t think there is such a thing as sound exegesis… is this something you’re getting from Wycliffe?

Oldverger…that link to the Abp. is 6 months old…get a grip!

Thank you Andrew. I know exactly what my Bishop (CFL) and the Bishop of Dallas, and other Bishops think about the confusion introduced by statements such as yours online here, in terms of the larger implication.. It is far from clear what listing ACN means. And that is not at the initiative of said Bishops. It would be good if this were cleared up and that people like you did not assume that the matter was so obvious.

Carl,

Women who are orthodox will shy away from WO.

what has this statement to do with statistics concerning whether women clergy are far more liberal than their male counterparts? You are stating that any woman who you would identify as conservative will shy away from WO. That would imply you are making an assessment of individual women. Furthermore, this is not my experience of conservative women.

[116] farstrider

It’s a pleasure to be able to say, I agree with you completely.

EMPEROR: There is a great disturbance in the Force.

VADER: I have felt it.

EMPEROR: We have a new enemy—Luke Farstrider.

VADER: Yes, my master.

EMPEROR: He could trouble our arguments.

VADER: If he could be turned, he would become a powerful ally.

EMPEROR: Yes. Yes. He would be a great asset. Can it be done?

VADER: He will join us or be apologized, my master.

carl

If now is not the time to establish a true orthodox church, then when?

33AD

It would be good if this were cleared up

Yes.  My critique is that the way the constitution and canons are worded create more questions on the topic then they answer.  There is a lack of clarity in these documents which is not helpful.

and that people like you did

People like me?  What category would that be?  People that live in Virginia?  People that know how to operate websites?  People that feel the right to public speculation and commentary?

Farstrider,

To answer this question would require more time and space then the blogs allow. I will say only this; sound discernment of Scripture necessarily involves the discernment of the whole Church across time as the Spirit works to quicken the errors we make; that is why consent to the decisions the whole Church (even if made in error) is necessary. Look, regardless of what Church we’re in, we’re going to make errors, we’re going to make sinful errors; that is the reality of our existence between Christ’s having come and his coming again. But our adherence to our Church structures (through which the Spirit works) is what it means for us to allow God to quicken our Scriptural interpretation.

Our knowledge of divine will is limited. So we can’t assume that our exegesis and our practices are going to be perfectly in line with God’s will. When we insist, by walking away from our structures, that somehow our individual interpretation is more sound than the structure we have left (even if it in fact really and truly is) we’re essentially saying we don’t trust God to quicken his Church in its errors.

So the question becomes, do we rely on our own interpretation (which, if we look at history means we will simply continue to divide at an ever increasing rate), or do we subject ourselves to God’s quickening of his Church and of our decisions concerning our discernment of Scripture.

This is far from a full answer I know; however, I suppose I have a rather early 16th century CoE/15th century/church father understanding of Scriptural discernment.

oops that should have been mid 16th to early 17th century CoE conciliar understanding of Scriptural discernment. Oh and yes, a rather more catholic (little c intended) discernment of Scripture is what I have learned at Wycliffe. Though I would venture to say as with any church or institution, there is not such a thing as a uniform understanding of Scriptural discernment. My views come from focusing my classes on ecclesiology, church history and a bit of the history of the interpretation of Scripture.

Okay, I’m going to sum up my participation in this thread and then shut up.

We’ve known for a long time the New Province is going to include WO.  Debating it right now does no good.

This is a positive step forward for those who have left TEC.  I pray that we will continue to see more forwards steps.  Many more are needed for this to become a truly unified province.

One negative is that the constution creates a lack of clarity about the status of parishes and dioceses affiliated with AAC, ACN and FiFNA that have no intention of leaving TEC for a New Province.  This also creates doubt about the claims that have been made about the number of congregations and people in this New Province.

One final observation:  FACA (Consisting of ACA, APA, AMiA and DHC) has been listed as a member of CCP for sometime now but is not listed in the Consitution of the Anglican Church in North America.  What is the relationship between FACA and the ACNA?

Going to be interesting how the TEC clergy explain this to their flocks.  “Gee father, why did this happen?”

Pretty predictable; it will be laid to the feet of mysogynist, racist, homophobes who refused to have open minds…

Dr. Seitz, I heard someone in the service (+Duncan?) say that there were official representatives from the Communion Partners present to observe the gathering so they could report back to their dioceses…, so I imagine there are Communion Partners who are present.

I think it amusing first, that this thread was so effectively hijacked into the whole WO debate, and then secondly, that the good Dr. Seitz has prickled again at being even remotely associated with the renegade “new province” (and a hearty thanks to old verger for the “breaking news” from the ABC). But more importantly does anyone in this blog really believe that the new province does not come complete with orthodox divisions intact? That somehow magically the issues about which there has been so much discussion, argument and divisive behavior disappeared into thin air? Or that the leaders forging forward with this effort do not comprehend the enormity of the task they have undertaken? If they have, they are not qualified to lead, period.

There are no easy answers, and the urge to rush headlong into judgement and criticism is obviously too great to resist for many herein. There are and will be no easy answers to maintaining unity in the new province, because it is being forged out of many different approaches to orthodoxy, and the past is greatly indicative of the potential to have the new province dismember itself on any number of “issues”. So yes, even this advance foward, post schism, in attempting to build unity out of divisiveness should be solemnly if joyfully praised by those to whom it offers hope. And if those remaining within,  who see it as a hardening of the schism, demonstrate some lese majeste in their reactions to it, well, let us at least temper our rejoicing too much in their presence, so as to not cause them to stumble.

For those within, the rejoicing is much along the lines of the relief felt by a mountain-climber finding a smallish ledge at last to stand on - a diminutive respite in the hard journey upwards. A good Christian would not begrudge a fellow-climber that respite, nor the rejoicing thereon - in hopes that a same smallish ledge may well be somewhere upwards of his own position, and the cause of rejoicing as well. In the meantime, could not all the froth and bother on these hijacking issues be better spent resolving the underlying issues that have caused them to become what they are in terms of divisiveness and belligerence? Or is it too easy to just gibber and point angrily and let the hard labor fall to someone who is more willing to eschew the emotive reactions for a real, Scriptural and Spirit-filled solution? Are we content to sit lit by the baleful glow of our screens and merely tap words into the electron streams? Show your faith with works. Show the fruits of the Spirit. Because we will be known by our fruits.

Sound exegesis of I Tim. 2 would include noting that St. Paul says nothing at all about women’s teaching anything to anybody. Men in particular are neither in the accusative case (used in Greek of the person or thing taught) nor in the dative (used of the person to whom something is taught). There is an absolute prohibition here of a woman/wife’s teaching, or domineering over a man/husband. Given the whole context, this letter and the Acts and Epistles as a whole, the teaching which is prohibited is likely to be one of two things, either ‘teaching with apostolic authority’, or ‘gadding about teaching like an itinerant false teacher’. The social context is as likely to be marriage as church.

For some careful discussion based on the original, please see NTWOTEXTS.

May I add that it does not seem to me to be Scriptural or godly to be thinking about sex all the time? That has been much of the trouble in the provinces from which some of us hope to be released. Leaders of the new province appear to have their heads blessedly screwed on in this regard.

AndrewA—Keep it up.  Your comments are insightful, appreciated, and make total sense—even if they are not what some want to hear.

Dr. Turner,

You may not remember but we (that is, you and I) have debated your interpretation of 1 Timothy 2 before. I can’t remember the context (titusonenine?), but I’ll simply let it stand that I don’t accept your restricting the meanings of the Greek the way you do… nor have the majority of translators and interpreters.

I’d like to respond to Optimus, but it’s true that this is a thread devoted to something other than W.O. so I’ll hang my hat up for now.

Let’s not forget that when the Revolutionary War and we were out from under the tyrrany of England, the founding fathers knew very little if anything about building a new government, but our ancestors trusted and supported them and thank God they did.  There is a strong parallel between what happened then and what happened today in Illinois.  Our ancestors supported the men who had the courage to lead us out from under the tyranny of England, now it’s our turn to support the clergy who have led us out from under the tyranny of the Episcopal Church.  Thank God there are still defenders of the faith in this church.

True.  The question is whether the capitulation of some of the founders regarding slavery was wise, and if there is a parallel in our own situation.

But more importantly does anyone in this blog really believe that the new province does not come complete with orthodox divisions intact? That somehow magically the issues about which there has been so much discussion, argument and divisive behavior disappeared into thin air?

MasterNav
Great questions and I have been trying to say exactly that! The problems and issues have not gone away and they have not been dealt with, thus this New Province already has a major strike against it. I wonder, when these leaders come together and one of the celebrants for the Eucharist is a woman priest what will Bishop Iker & Bishop Schofleid do? How is a Prayer Book going to look for those who are far more protestant and evangelical vs. those who are far more Anglo-Catholic? If talking and addressing the elephant in the room is hijacking Masternav then I will admit guilt. But at least my head is not in the sand and I am not sweeping the elephant under the carpet for many to stumble on and thinking that all the issues that divide have all disappeared into thin air!

#160 Don’t let your mind be so open that your brains fall out.  When one relies on name-calling, you know that they have lost.  When you love as God loves and/or as a parent loves, you must chasten them. Even children know when they do wrong and when their parents do not chasten them, they feel that their parents do not love them enough to be bothered. We love you!

The ABoC hasn’t been bothered to actually listen or care. The Southern Cone has every ability to understand what those in the US and Canada, who have been persecuted by revisionists in TEC, have been going through.. as the leadership in the Southern Cone have experienced the same thing. They are doing what Christ advocated that all of us should do.

I’m reminded of a scene in the Great Santini where he claims that his moody teenage daughter could “find turds in ice cream.”

What a fantastic service - did you all catch it?

bb

It has been noted that the Continuing Anglican Churches (ACC, APCK, UECNA, APA) already exist for those who are opposed to ordination of women to holy orders. This is true.  They are fine churches with many fine parishes who offer beautiful and traditional Anglo-Catholic worship.

The only problem is that there are not large numbers of these fine churches, and in some areas of the country, there are none at all.  In most areas of the country, Continuing Anglican parishes have many parishioners who regularly drive one to two hours or more every Sunday to attend.

If they could be united into one jurisdiction, it would allow them to have more resources for hopefully planting more missions and parishes.  However, the outlook for jurisdictional unity does not look good, at this point.

I have come to believe that the best way forward for Anglo-Catholics is to unite under the Anglican Use Provision.  Rome has the ability, resources, buildings, and other necessary things to truly plant new Anglo-Catholic missions and parishes, especially for those who oppose women’s ordination.  The Anglican Use “Book of Divine Worship” contains traditional BCP (including the supplements from the AGNLICAN MISSAL prized by many Anglo-Catholics) Liturgy valued by many Anglo-Catholics. The 1940 Episcopal Hymnal is the official Hymnal of the Anglican Use Society.

GG #170:
You do understand that my comment was a facetious reply to #159, right?

#25

I don’t think that sweeping issues that still divide under the carpet is a wise way to start out!

Exactly what has been swept under the rug?  It would appear that whatever you think that is has NOT divided us, and as long as we respect one another’s consciences it will not divide.  We are all a work in progress and hopefully we will let God decide.

#28 . . . and you “know” Bishop Ackerman?  You could not, or you would not speak such.

GG,

It might be best for you to read through all the comments first—you appear to be responding without all the info.

Gigs Girl,
Try reading the whole. thread before you make a comment like that one in #176

ODC, allow me to respectfully disagree with you: the new province doesn’t have a strike against it. It has all the attendant dysfunction it had in the context of TEC, now removed from that context into its own. Your wonderment will be answered in due time by the actual behaviors of the bishops you listed. And then you can register your disappointment or elation, depending what their behavior means to you and your position. The whole anglo-catholic/evangelical/reformationist issue set is old hat, and not something that will be easily solved. Nor should it. These are tough questions and tough issues to resolve. Now as to your too easy mixture of metaphors, the elephant is in the dance hall (or ballroom), and the purpose of addressing the elephant is to recognize the disproportionate effect it has on the other dancers. Burying ones head in the sand is an allusion to avoiding the obvious, but at the same time attempting to sweep the elephant under a rug makes for a rather comical vision. Having worked around elephants myself, I am rather assured that sweeping the elephant under anything is a foregone study in futility. Reminiscent of a joke I read somewhere about the futility of the standard canards on industriousness: “keep your ear to the ground, your eye on the ball, your nose to the grindstone, now try to get anything done in that position!”

But to run around crying doom and gloom about issues which are ever-present in our life together as Anglicans and then to proclaim it a potential death knell to the newly constituted province is rather silly, wouldn’t you agree? And to assume that no one else is capable of perceiving that state nor capable of forging any unity out of it is to ignore the power of God, the influence of the Holy Spirit, and the determination of many godly and servant-minded people whose impossible task God has set to join together what broken human nature would tear asunder. Could it possibly be that where we see impossibility, God sees an opportunity for a miracle, for a demonstration of His divine power and love? Are we so removed in these latter days that we cannot allow for God working real miracles into those things which He desires to grow and succeed? Or is our skepticism so now ingrained in us that we refuse to let God work in our own lives to move us where He wants us to be?

And finally, my head is well above ground and largely without sand, and while I normally do not discuss church politics with elephants, I have been known to dance with them on occasion, being both complimentary and nimble-footed; and there is nothing under my rugs of any pachydermal nature, dusty or otherwise for others to stumble upon. The issues are there for us to solve by God’s grace, or to divide us by the agency of our own broken natures, we are called by God to serve faithfully as servants of one another in obedience to His will. If we keep God central in our relationships with one another, He will resolve our issues with us as faithfully as He provided that Grace which reclaimed us from the dead.

Grace and Peace

oops! Sorry Fidela, I didn’t realize you had posted the same thing as I did and since she was addressing me I just push forward with my reply!

#176
God has already decided in that the Canon of Scripture in 1 Timothy says Deacons and Bishops will be husbands of one wife. 
Lot of comments about how this thread is turning into another WO thread but the question is really about what is orthodox.  If this new entity is founded on a particular generations desires rather than the plain read of Scripture then it is headed for the same troubles it left. 
Either the Faith once for all delivered is good enough or you want a new religion that suits one’s own world view.
There is nothing illegal about starting a new religion people do it everyday.  The question here is whether this is a return to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church or is it another new denomination?  If it be the OHCaAC then you will have to check your innovations at the door… all of them.

Da Nada, ODC.

#31 AMEN! #36 We are to neither add nor detract from the Holy Scripture.  Hasn’t that been the major issue? 
#55

If the foundation is not solid, the building will not stand. Jesus spoke quite strongly and clearly about the “foundation” in many parts of Scripture.

The foundation is our Lord Jesus, the Christ.  Our foundation is NOT built on whether or not women should be ordained.  Personally,I believe that had Jesus wanted women Apostles, He would have named one or two.  He did many things that the Pharisees would condemn, including speaking to a woman alone in public, or teaching women, so He could just as easily have “called” a woman to be an Apostle.  I believe that women demanding ordination as priests is a secular problem relating to equality of positions and it should not be brought into the Church; however, others have the right to disagree with that and it will be Jesus we must answer to, not one another. There WERE women deaconesses in the early church, even though they may have had different duties than present ones, but I can see nothing in scripture that is violated or “added to” by ordaining women as deacons.

And to assume that no one else is capable of perceiving that state nor capable of forging any unity out of it is to ignore the power of God, the influence of the Holy Spirit, and the determination of many godly and servant-minded people whose impossible task God has set to join together what broken human nature would tear asunder.

Masternav,
I never ignore the power of God nor the influence of the Holy Spirit. But I wonder, if these issues have been hashed and rehashed and still are in the “ballroom” as you say, then why has not God lead one godly and servant-minded side or the other to the revelation by the Holy Spirit to show which is correct? Ah yes! God is silent on this matter and has been for a few decades or has He? Or is He just waiting for us to actually follow His Word and stop trying to re-define it to fit our wants and desires for self fulfillment of things that we are clearly not suppose to do nor have.

184
How do you know Jesus is your foundation if not by Scripture?  Do you get to pick which Scripture you will observe and which you will not?

If you have the right to cherrypick and second guess the Canon why can’t Vicki Gene Robinson?
The women such as Phebe who were deaconesses were not ordained as were the deacons and overseers.  Deaconesses seem to only be widows as well.  There is no mention of Phebe having a husband as I recall. 

So if Jesus is the foundation and he ordained men as you say then how is it logical that you suggest that it is a matter of choice or opinion?

#174 No, I did not know you were being facetious.  I have apparently not been here enough to know your personality (but, take care because there are many others who may, like me, not know you well enough to tell when you are being facetious and maybe it would be good to end the thought with that word.  Thanks for the correction.
# 178 No, I understood you are probably talking about women’s ordination, but it certainly has not been swept under the rug or this would not have turned into a WO discussion.  That is why I asked the question re WHAT has been swept under the rug; for I know of nothing that HAS been swept under the rug, and we in FiF have been kept VERY well-informed.

#182

If it be the OHCaAC then you will have to check your innovations at the door… all of them.

And exactly what do you think are “my” innovations?  I don’t recall speaking to anything that was “my” innovation.
# 185

But I wonder, if these issues have been hashed and rehashed and still are in the “ballroom” as you say, then why has not God lead one godly and servant-minded side or the other to the revelation by the Holy Spirit to show which is correct?

1.  You might want to read the Book of Job.
2.  Ever heard of GOD’s time?

Well that’s good news Gigs Girl! I’m glad to know that all in FiF have been well informed as well as all the other acronyms out there that are coming together have as well been well informed….thus the New Anglican Province! You are obviously missing the point being made on this thread. I know it’s a long thread but well worth the read if you take the time before commenting.

Oh and by the way Gigs Girl,
God is still waiting on us all to be united as one…I don’t think all the fracturing is going to bring that about not at this time any way….but God’s time is a wondrous thing after all and truly worth the wait, but we still have to do our part as His servants to bring it all about and I don’t see us doing that yet either. What have any of us in any of these Acronyms done to unite all Christians together as God has asked us to do? Splitting off into different new groups with a new name is not bringing any of the others that have been stated above, i.e. APCK, APA, etc… under the broad tent because there are issues that still divide. That is not unity as one as God has called us to work towards.

I meant to direct the comment “checking innovations”  to the new entity not to you personally GG. 

However your comments do seem conflicted on WO- the idea that deaconesses were ordained is not biblical there is not a single instance of laying on of hands by Paul or other Apostle or Overseer such as Titus on a deaconess and there is no record of such in the early Church. It is a lay order.

“...however, others have the right to disagree with that”  This comment is novel in that it seems to suggest doctrine is optional or to be left to individual interpretation otherwise I agree with much of what you say.  If your statement is true than VGR is a legitimate Bishop because he too has the “right” to disagree.

Is it the faith once delivered a deposit of Revelation or is it an Evolving revelation?

As I wrote earlier, the time is coming when committed Christians can sit down together, pray and seek God’s leading with regard to W.O. and other concerns. For now…

I think we can give God thanks for the door of opportunity that he has opened, and for the godly bishops (and archbishop) that he has raised up to lead us. We can thank him for the new equipping and support we will have to proclaim the gospel in Canada and the States. And we can pray that God will keep us all at the center of his will as we seek to be faithful to him in all things.

Goodnight All.

It seems very clear that the Anglo-Catholics in TEC (and I assume that includes many if not most of those who oppose WO) have been bullied, marginalized and at the very least, not provided room to grow. As their key bishops age, the Anglo-Catholic position in TEC is further weakened, to the point where one wonders how it can survive.

I myself prefer the Anglo-Catholic path. We are now being offered a gift from God - a Province where ALL the true orthodox can grow and prosper and not be bullied, and (unless we are a little paranoid) where we can stop worrying ceaselessly about ‘inevitable slippery slopes’ and the like. All we have to do is not bully in return those orthodox Anglicans who disagree with us on this or that, but who are still solidly orthodox, or who feel that this is not a time to emphasize what could divide us. In my mind, the alternatives (stay in TEC, join a tiny dying splinter and drive 200 miles, stop going to church, etc.) are mostly too appalling to consider.

Or we could just highjack all the hopeful threads and just fight, fight, fight, until opportunity is lost.

Your opportunity was not and has not been lost rkreed! It was birthed today. I and many will be watching and praying that it can succeed where all others have failed I would just like to know what makes them that much different than all those who have gone before them and are still walking apart from the New Anglican Province In America and what is it that they may have that will give them a better opportunity to succeed where the others have not as some would like yourself would assume by your comments of “a Province where ALL the true orthodox can grow and prosper and not be bullied” and “join a tiny dying splinter”! First of all, the “tiny splinter Provinces of ALL true orthodox” Anglicans like APA, and APCK, etc… are just that “True Orthodox Christians and they are growing and are prospering ...slowly ...but they have been around for quite a long time and are growing. So what makes this New Anglican Province different than those? What will set this New Province apart from those?

Tiresome Trollery.

Thread captured nicely, and the faithfull are once again distracted. My way or the highway, and never mind the log in my eye. This thread should be filled with rejoicing, but is instead mired in aggressive anti WO tactical manouverings.

Odd that in this thread that we have a rather convincing example of why it’s better for women to cover their heads and be silent.

Yes, let’s grab the joy again and brush off the nay-sayers.  WO will always be a nice, juicy bone of contention to gnaw upon, but it pales in comparison to the decay that is TEC.  I prefer men as priests; seems to me we went astray when a lot of rather angry lesbians priestesses found the pulpit to be an instant bullhorn for their bitterness…. and my apologies to the fine women I know have been ordained, but you all appear to be in a minority.  However, WO would not be a dealbreaker for me.  If the church is orthodox and the preaching and teaching help lead me to know Jesus, then I’m there. 

God has been good, so good, to his faithful.  He is leading us out of our bondage.  To my brothers and sisters in Christ, I say Rejoice and be glad.

GMM

#48
ODC,
She broke the back of the unions that had a stranglehold on the country.  That has had a lasting, positive effect.

God created men and women; He calls both into His service (Esther, Deborah, Lydia, Priscilla)as HE wills.  His Creation shows us that God has complementary and necessary roles and purposes for male and female, not identical ones.  Scripture affirms both my statements. 

We need to respect what God has spoken through both nature and Scripture. 
Women should not usurp Male roles and authority in the Church, but glory in their own gifts, strengths and graces as God has ordained and bestowed. 

Women have gifts of sensitivity, discernment of danger and evil, and of hospitality, graciousness, relationality, nurture, of creating beauty, peace and calm…encouragement…that are necessary and needed in the church.  I believe God wants man and wife to serve as couples in strength and unity as One Spirit, One Mind, One Flesh…to guard one another from temptation and error.  Much disunity, dishonesty, temptation and immorality within the church could be avoided if this were the case.

One of the effects of the Fall was to distort, confuse and cloud the identities of human beings as male and female and the relationship between the sexes.

From the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7762110.stm
Nothing really new in the report, but it does treat the new Province with a degree of respect.

Please stop. “WO will always be a nice, juicy bone of contention to gnaw upon, but it pales in comparison to the decay that is TEC.”

No Friends. It does not pale in comparison to…; rather, WO is part and parcel of the very decay of TEC itself: elevating cultural predispositions and experience over Scripture and Tradition (and I’d argue Reason as well).

You have a different view on WO? Of course you do. But stop telling me, just like TEC does, that these issues aren’t intrinsically tied to the integrity of Scripture the integrity of the Faith, and for that matter, the glory of God.

(sarc) Silly me, needlessly gnawing on the glory of God, when instead I could be following your and the TEC’s enlightened lead.

Bishop Ackerman may well have found a remarkable way to have his ‘cake and eat it, too’. I’ve said this before but it bears repeating: Most anything is better than having your ‘Kate and edict, too’!

The ‘gay’ phenomenon is just another symptom or result of the Fall in Eden.  ALL humans are born with disoriented identities and separated from God. 

Same-sex sexual attraction is a conditioned emotional/mental/behavioral response and just another disoriented, distorted, arrested identity created by sin. 

Sin separates us from God and from one another and has distorted ALL human identities and relationships…the parental relationship, same-sex friendships and opposite-sex friendships and marriage. 

We must be reoriented and reconciled to God when we are regenerated by coming to faith in Jesus Christ. (I Corinthians 6:9-11). 

The spiritual, emotional/mental, relational and physical interactions, traumas, deprivations that occur can thwart and disorient human development.  When basic built-in emotional needs are withheld, distorted or are unpredictable, this creates distress and deficit which intensifies the need into a hunger and this leads to trying to fill that hunger with sexualized same-sex activity and relationships. 

Children whose parents are adulterous, addicted or abusive (physically or emotionally) or absent due to death, divorce or disunity(disunity creates emotional turmoil and can also prevent a child from identifying or bonding with their same-sex parent) suffer parental abandonment….a state of fatherlessness and motherlessness. 

The abandonment of parents is the most painful state possible for a child.  These children grow up in emotional turmoil and torment, deprived of the nurture God intended (unless another person or the church intervenes and supplies what they need).  God designed His church to be a family and intends His church to fill the deep needs of Her members. 

God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit with the Church can and will be the parents that teach and build in us a new and rightly oriented identity.  Psalm 27:10. 

God is Our True, Faithful, Husband, (Isaiah 54)Father who is Love,  Jesus The Man, is our Role Model and Brother, the Faithful and True Bridegroom. 

God speaks angrily against this in Malachi 2 and 4 and then is silent for 430 years…until He sends Jesus to save us….and Christ is able to save us from all sin, (I Corinthians 6:9-11; II Peter 1:3-8) and to save us the uttermost (Hebrews 7:25).

But for WO,  the new province could be structured in an orthodox way.  And yet, before long, everyone in it will realize that it is an issue held over from their TEC days.  Orthodox women are not interested in being presbyters.  The position of deaconess is right for them, and I have never heard of a man who wanted to be a deaconess.  End of problem.

#133 - that is a secular answer to a theological question.

A “compromise” is not Biblical. You can’t serve two masters. We need to choose either Jesus, or satan. Which will you choose? Any church that compromises on God’s truth will never return to a “Biblical church order”. History tells us that quite clearly. Even in the first century Paul had to warn the Corinthians to beware for the false teachers and block them (they were already starting to enter the true Christian Church). We need to do the same now. Any who are willing to accept even a shred of compromise truly need to examine the strength of their faith.

And which church in this universe do you consider to be the only one who has chosen God and not Satan?  You know, the “infallible” one.  AS long as human beings are “The Church” there will not be an infallible one.  Should we start thanking God that we are not like those sinners?????

For goodness sake, if you want to know what the Anglican Communion Network is about PLEASE go to their web site and find out.

#191 Please do not compare the ordination of women as deacons with the ordination of VGR. It is quite offensive (and no, I am NOT a deacon). VGR is living in sin; there is no comparison whatsoever here.  I can hardly believe that anyone would say such a thing (though why, after reading many of the posts here I would think that even amazes me).  Many base their belief that women should be ordained as priests on the scripture that deems us all equal in the eyes of God.  I don’t consider that sufficient, but it is contained in scripture.  There were many women who were very active in their churches and are honorably mentioned in Paul’s letters.  I don’t consider that sufficient either. What I am trying to say is that there are those who are very sincere about their belief in equality according to God’s Word in scripture.  I would agree that some use this to support a position that they held and needed to find this to support their belief (I will change that from “point of view”).  There are others who have been taught so from youth, using that scripture.  They are just as sincere as you or I, but since Jesus did not select a woman to be an Apostle, He is my guide.  You are correct about ordination not being indicated for deacons; however, deacons are NOT priests, neither the women nor the men. It is quite a huge difference.  Deacons’ calling is quite profound - they receive no compensation and are fully dedicated to serve others (at least the ones I know).  It is the difference between an calling and a “profession” that is pretty obvious in some priests.  Those are referred to as “risers.”  But that is a slippery slope on my part, because there I go judging someone else.  That’s God’s job not mine.

#190 (yes sometimes I read posts backwards)

God is still waiting on us all to be united as one…I don’t think all the fracturing is going to bring that about not at this time any way….but God’s time is a wondrous thing after all and truly worth the wait, but we still have to do our part as His servants to bring it all about and I don’t see us doing that yet either.

Has it not occurred to anyone that this very fracture could eventually lead us back to Rome (in God’s time and in His way)?  Yes, you are absolutely right, we are to work to be united.  God must shed tears when He sees the things we do; but sometimes separation from the wrong thing will lead us to reunion with the right one.  There is no possibility that TEC is going in that direction at this time and we are warned not to be with those who are heretics or apostate.

Great post #197

She broke the back of the unions that had a stranglehold on the country.  That has had a lasting, positive effect.

  Wow!  That was some accomplishment!  We should go back to the days of sweat shops and child labor.  I’m sure the Lord would be pleased with that!  Noone who works by the sweat of his/her brow could say such a thing. 
Secular success is not what Jesus is about.  It’s one of the errors of most TV “preachers.”  I will grant that she has certainly given labor a chance to pick up their cross and follow Jesus.

This is from David Virtue’s web site.

Bishop Ackerman Will Assist in Diocese of Springfield

By David W. Virtue
http://www.virtueonline.org
12/3/2008

The Rt. Rev. Keith L. Ackerman, former Bishop of Quincy, who retired for health reasons last month will serve as an assisting bishop in the Diocese of Springfield.

Bishop Ackerman told VOL yesterday in Wheaton, Illinois at the inauguration of a new North American Anglican Province, that he was angered by a magazine report that said he was Assistant Bishop.

“I am an assisting bishop and I have no intention of performing any canonical or sacramental acts in the Diocese of Springfield. There was no need to notify Mrs. Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop. I will do spiritual retreats for clergy but nothing that would interfere with the fact that I have retired from The Episcopal Church. This position does not require consents from the House of Bishops.”

Bishop Ackerman told VOL that he and his wife are selling their home and will shortly move to Texas where he plans a ministry revolving around Dove Tracts, writing and spiritual direction.

The Diocese of Quincy recently voted to leave The Episcopal Church and affiliate with the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone, based in Argentina.

END

I hope that those who think in regard to this holy man that he is “having his cake and eating it, too” will now think about what they have said.  I suggest you get on line and order some of his Dove Tracts.

  tk+ I intended my comments as a compliment on his cleverness, not an insult.

This was a clarifying comment by the original poster 32 hours ago.
GG, in the spirit of charity, I urge you to read threads carefully.  To make reponses many hours if not days after the original comments and clarifications makes it seem as if you are trying to be quarrelsome, which I do not believe you are intending.
Blessings to you.

Gigs Girl, and the PB, Jefferts-Schori attacks anyone who expresses concern about the suffering of poor American citizens, who have had their jobs outsourced, and been displaced by cheap foreign labor, as she doesn’t believe that poverty here should be addressed. She demands that all aid money be used to fund her cronies in big pharma who seek to exploit poverty in Africa, to use those poor people as guinea pigs to test their AIDS vaccines on, by using the aid money as bribes to corrupt government leaders.

I’m no fan of Thatchers, but as mean as her policies were, she doesn’t hold a candle to the kleptocrats of the far left.

Does anyone here know how the requirements for a bishop section was worked up?  One of the posters on HoBD asked, and I gave some outside looking in reasons why they didn’t quote the ‘requirements’ from Scripture, but maybe some one here has knowledge of the real reasons…

156
It is important that we understand that often God’s will is accomplished in spite of us, not because of us, but we at least have to make the attempt to try to discern what His wishes are.  We also need to remember that He does provide for our every need, but remember, too, that “God didn’t put the worm in the bird’s mouth.”

#209

This was a clarifying comment by the original poster 32 hours ago.
GG, in the spirit of charity, I urge you to read threads carefully.  To make reponses many hours if not days after the original comments and clarifications makes it seem as if you are trying to be quarrelsome, which I do not believe you are intending.
Blessings to you.

You are correct that I am not intending to be quarrelsome; but if you read the threads carefully I have mentioned that it is difficult for a “newbie” to discern when people they don’t know make facetious comments open to interpretation.  You all may be better than I at it, but it seems to me that if a new person doesn’t understand where you are coming from they might presume that you don’t particularly want their comments.
From the negativity and attempt to discourage those who have finally found a “home” after 40 years (and more for many) in the desert, it almost seems that some will rejoice if failure comes.  It is quite stressful and disconcerting for some to come to the realization that those who control what was a Christian Church will be teaching anything and everything except God’s Word and Jesus as Lord. 
I hold up to the Lord these faithful men and women who have had the courage to follow God’s Word, The Word, and pray that He will protect them from the naysayers who would attack their efforts to be obedient to God in word and deed.  I pray for a hedge of protection around them from those who offer nothing but discouragement. Thanks be to God that they are willing to make very great sacrifices to uphold the faith as received from the Saints and the saints.

#210
“kleptocrats” on the far left?  If we haven’t learned anything in this country from the economic situation that we are now in, we certainly should plainly see that kleptocrats do not dwell on the left.  They are those who have no compunction about lying to people or to lenders to sell property (particularly when they won’t be the ones to be stuck with the bill), those who receive obscene amounts of money in compensation for causing the collapse of the businesses of which they have control while getting rid of employees to “cut costs,” whose only concern is the “bottom line” whether it costs Americans jobs or not.  Why do you think they encourage people to “invest” for their retirement?  Then everyone will have a vested interest in that bottom line and encourage more of the same, no matter what it costs others in this country of ours who cannot find a job because their jobs have been shipped out of the country.  They are those who claim that this nation is founded on Christian principals but call those who would feed the hungry, clothe the naked, care for the orphans and widows, and heal the sick “socialists,”  because it may cost them something.  They are those who want God left in the pledge of allegiance, but allow their children to miss church on Sunday to play in some sort of sport.
I saw a cartoon today that showed a man speaking to his pastor and saying “Pledge?  Sure I’ll pledge!  I was afraid you were going to ask me to give something.”

Well if you look at the Presiding Bishops comments in the LA Times story she comes across as very very angry - she seems to be lashing out at everyone in her frustration:

“They are no longer Episcopalians,” Jefferts Schori said of those who left. “They have made that very clear in their departures.

“Those who were formally bishops in the Episcopal Church are no longer understood to be bishops in the Episcopal Church,” she added in a meeting with Times reporters. “They are free to associate with whom they wish.”

Of course she can say whatever she likes about people, she only has to get round those inconvenient canon things.

Comment #215 in wrong thread.