SCB:  No Future For Traditional Anglican Values

Gene, my love, NO BISHOP ordains women—-no bishop can ordain women.

A church that does not ordain women

Does this mean the Catholic and Orthodox churches are about to crumble? What a silly statement.

Like most Liberals, he mistakes his own transitory world view - rooted as it is in Western egalitarianism and individualism - for ‘The Inevitable March of History.’  Liberals hold unconditionally to belief in the progressive improvement of man, and even more to the idea that they are the point of the progressing spear. 

carl

Well you gotta give him credit. He is still out there spreading the lie instead of the Good News of the transforming love and power of the sacrifice our Lord Jesus Christ made for the forgiveness of sins on the cross and to be reborn into His image. If nothing else Gene is consistent and his path isn’t even paved with good intentions just his own selfish, arrogant, spiteful agenda. He can’t even muster a “Hey, I wish them well.” Nah, that would be too Christian of him.

Must have a new book coming out and needs the pub…
Intercessor

Eh, those Catholics and Orthodox are a flash in the pan.

#5
By jove, I think you’ve got it.
Followed by the book signing tour and more Photo Ops, of course.

Marie Blocher
Baptized by full immersion,
April 1949,
1st Baptist church, Memphis, TN

That statement, surely made without thinking (what a shock) is so narcissistic that it is completely ridiculous.  I hope that they are sure to tell the Romans what Gene’s outlook is for the Catholics.  Of course, Schori holds the Catholic church in about as high a stead as Gene does.  They both can’t stand the Catholic church because it actually requires adherance to a theology that is well rooted.

If the leadership of TEC weren’t so miniscule as to escape their notice, I’m sure the Bishops of the Catholic church would get a chuckle out this chuckleheaded statement.

In the world of Gene Robinson, and what other world could there be, a church without Gene Robinson is doomed.

Sheesh.

Of course Bishops ordain women; It’s just that people who don’t accept the ordination of women don’t consider them Bishops and don’t consider their ordinations valid.

Exactly FenelonSpoke, exactly.

Robinson told ENI after delivering a sermon on 28 June at the First Presbyterian Church…

Note to the Presbys, there is an old tale that goes as follows:

One cold night, as an Arab sat in his tent, a camel gently thrust his nose under the flap and looked in. “Master,” he said, “let me put my nose in your tent. It’s cold and stormy out here.” “By all means,” said the Arab, “and welcome” as he turned over and went to sleep.

A little later the Arab awoke to find that the camel had not only put his nose in the tent but his head and neck also. The camel, who had been turning his head from side to side, said, “I will take but little more room if I place my forelegs within the tent. It is difficult standing out here.” “Yes, you may put your forelegs within,” said the Arab, moving a little to make room, for the tent was small.

Finally, the camel said, “May I not stand wholly inside? I keep the tent open by standing as I do.” “Yes, yes,” said the Arab. “Come wholly inside. Perhaps it will be better for both of us.” So the camel crowded in. The Arab with difficulty in the crowded quarters again went to sleep. When he woke up the next time, he was outside in the cold and the camel had the tent to himself.

Jackie, I guwaffed outloud at work when I read your comment on the Pope.  Keep up the good work.

And, because I don’t think we SFers do it enough, a prayer for the simple country bishop:

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on Gene; send your Holy Spirit to convict his heart and bring him to repentance; and at the last, bring him, and all those your Son has gained for you, to that Heavenly Country where you live and reign, with the Father and the same Spirit: one God, in glory everlasting. Amen.

...Schori holds the Catholic church in about as high a stead as Gene does.  They both can’t stand the Catholic church because it actually requires adherance to a theology…

Not to mention the fact that both the Catholic and Orthodox churches are showing healty growth, while their own beloved tec dwindles to obscurity.

Oh yeah Gene?! Well I don’t see a church that ordains openly gay men, women, denies the divinity of Christ, etc… having a future.
Since my theological training is most certainly more extensive than yours, (16 years of Catholic school, Sunday school) and history being on my side, (2,000 years worth) I will again guess that you have no idea what you are talking about.
In fact, I will go one step further; the only reason people listen to you is becasue you are gay and a bishop. You certainly have no other qualifications worth mentioning than those. The only reason you were elected bishop is because you are “gay”. In fact, you were once married and had children. So you were not “born” gay. You “evolved”. So in reality, since you have batted from both sides of the plate, you are a sexual deviant. So the liberals lift you up and oohhh and awww at every instance you have verbal diahrrea. You are a fraud, plain and simple. The sad part is none of the sheeple in TEC are the wiser. You are not gay, not a bishop, not a good husband, not a good father,etc… So what are you but an ignorant, self- important, ego- maniac? Regardless, your 15 minutes are up, FRAUD!

I know you will be shocked to hear the Simple Country Bishop (SCB) was not in New Hampshire this past weekend.

Heh.  He’s not real sure where it is anymore.

A church that does not ordain women or openly gay people - I don’t see a future for that.

Perhaps Mr. Robinson should read a bit of church history. I am sure he would be shocked, shocked I tell you, to find out that the ordination of women was prohibited at the Councils of Nimes (394-396) and Orange (441) 1600 years ago! Oh how did the Church ever survive?

In the book “Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy”, there were a pair of glasses called panic glasses (I think) that went completely dark when something really bad was going to happen to the wearer, thus reducing the impact, because you couldn’t see “it” coming. I think Billy Gene’s glasses are pitch black…

he as usual is just full of"godly” wisdom

[17] Festivus

Oh how did the Church ever survive?

Primitive people produce primitive rules.  Mankind has advanced in the last 1600 years.  We are no longer children who shiver in the dark in fear of an evil demi-urge who would condemn us to hell.  Or ... at least some of us are.

progressive carl

From the same source who predicted in 2003 that the “new thing” would bring hundreds and thousands of new people to TEC’s membership. Heh, yep, that worked out well!

Hello, TLDillion-

Of course I’m not one of the ones here who considers wonen’s ordinations invalid and the Bishops who ordain them not really Bishops, and I think it’s not worth arguing about. Nobody’s opinion will really change, and no matter how people shout it won’t change their opinion.

My favorite came from Kenneth Stiles, for I have tend to ignore +Robinson:

“Despite the ACNA’s grand words, the new organization is being built largely with assets belonging to the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada.

I thought we were being built on the mission and teachings of Jesus Christ. I guess I missed the memo.

I agree that Gene Robison may have been elected in part because he was gay, but how can anyone know what prompted to the decision except for the people who actually voted for him?  I have heard that Bishop Schori had no pastoral experince (as in being a rector) before she became Bishop. She was ordained a priest, however, and it was legal under the then current rules in the TEC, whether people agree with those rules or how they came about or not.  I’m assuming that Gene Robinson had been a priest before he became a Bishop. I doubt that Gene Robinson had absolutely no criteria for being Bishop according to the regulations in TEC. And I’m not trying to debate his ordination either. As far as I know, too, he has never denied the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Please remember that The Diocese of Pittsburgh, the dioceses that grow out of Uganda and Kenya do ordain women. This comment is not to open a discussion of the validity of women’s ordination, which I believe is a valid understanding of Scriptures, but to correct Gene’s statement.

VGR is almost right in a sense.  There is no future for a church that tries to split the difference on WO.  It is a second-order issue between churches, but a first-order issue within a church.  This is the lesson from the CoE.  Anglo-Catholics must be given the equivalent of a separate organization within the CoE to remain. 

ACNA has not yet come to terms with this reality.  It is following the same flawed compromise as the CoE.  To allow women to be ordained but not made bishops is incoherent, and therefore unstable.  How ACNA resolves this I don’t know.  The easy way is to return to the biblical witness and restrict ordination to men.  But I doubt that will happen.  As it stands, WO is a crack in the foundation of ACNA.  Cracked foundations are dangerous.

carl

After all this time I am still trying to understand how Gene Robinson has grappled with and come to terms with those parts of scripture that say that a priest, deacon, overseer, should be husband of one wife and that homosex is an abomination? This man has divorced his wife and taken on a homosex life with another man. How did he get past the knowledge of breaking some very serious rules in scripture and continually lives in such a state of sin then has the audacity to go around making these kinds of statements? I just don’t understand how he can look himself in the mirror every day and not see what he has done and is doing.

I agree with you, Carl. I think it is not coherent for a church to ordain women preists but not Bishops. If that is a fundamental sticking point for folks I think they ought to have no women’s ordination, but then the question is what do you do with women who were already ordained under TEC who wish to be part of ACNA? If I were ordained as an Episcopal priest and was told my ordination would be revoked under ACNA rules I probably wouldn’t join the denomination either because it would be a slap in the face to ordained women who have faithfully served and are (except for the issue of WO) theologically conservative. And yes, they are around.

I second #1. Couldn’t say it any better myself.

#28 - I agree with you- but it is not “a slap in the face”. The thing is that a woman is improper matter to be ordained to begin with, and so any Mass she celebrates is invalid. That is a far worse thing than hurting someone’s feelings.

Romans, Mores, and Morals

Omitted in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer of The Episcopal Church
Are the two verses in Paul’s letter to the Romans condemning homosexual practice.
Therein lies the germ of a controversy that has ignited fervent disagreement,
Resulting in a split in American Anglicanism and a threat to the future of the
  worldwide Anglican Communion.

Should anyone care, why can’t people hold different interpretations?
Because those who have excised the passage have closed the door to debate.
One must accept their stand that homosexual sex acts are naturally derived
From genetic predilections ingrained at birth, hence must be regarded as normal.

If you don’t believe this, you are a homophobe, and guilty of a hate crime.
Thus those who protested the consecration of a homosexual partnered bishop
Are branded as fundamentalist, persecuting, right-wing, zealots,
Who would regulate the morals of all people, like the Taliban does.

One can understand why these malcontents have left their church,
But if the proponents of rejecting Paul’s words are right,
And the opponents are wrong, why has this exegesis not brought
Thousands of converts to the newly enlightened Episcopal Church?

Is that static I hear?

As I said, there is no point in debating women’s ordination. The people who think women are validly ordained in TEC will continue to think so. Those who don’t-won’t. Those who think this is all about women “feeling” that they have a “right” to ordination probably haven’t spoken seriously and at length to ordained women. I know of NO women who ever considered ordination a right and I’ve been speaking to them since the 80’s. They feel it is a calling and a privilege-not a right.

Peace in the Lord Jesus Christ.

18 -

(Oh, am I laughing!)

Those were the—
Joo Janta 200 Peril Sensitive Sunglasses

“Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses have been specially designed to help people develop a relaxed attitude to danger. At the first hint of trouble, they turn totally black and thus prevent you from seeing anything that might alarm you.”

D.

#31 Oh contrare!  I don’t know where you were in the 80’s but WO was the original “justice issue” that permeated the church and those that were part of the original group invalidly ordained in 1976 and then regularized in ‘79 saw it just that way.  It was a matter of equality and equal rights.
For a very interesting commentary on the role “jusitice issues” have on the entire program of TEC see http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/2009/06/a-question-for-progressive-episcopalians/ this article posted today by Dr. Phillip Turner posits the question: “What reason can be given from the point of view of progressive Epioscoplaians [committed to a jusitce driven agenda] to a traditional Anglican for being a member of The Episcopal Church.”  In writing this commentary and asking this question, we see again another authoritative source essentially conceding the truth, to wit:  the progressive agenda in TEC is relentless and unyielding, and intolerant of any dissenting views. In that context the question is indeed profound and one which all of us will have to answer eventually. We (my family) are crumbling from the weight of this even in our faithful orthodox parish.  We are continuously bombarded by questions of why do you profess faithfulness but tolerate apostasy?  I don’t really have a good answer any more.
Blessings!

Pack it in, folks.  It’s not for our generation to fix, and it can’t be fixed with human hands, anyhow. 

In the meantime, the existence of this site (and the privilege for contributors to contribute within the guidelines thereof) is uh, progress.

#26 Carl,
Thank you for saying the obvious and the truth.

I need to amend my previous, i was asressing #33 initially and not #31. sorry!

[23 and others] “Despite the ACNA’s grand words, the new organization is being built largely with assets belonging to the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada.”  Shori – Robinson – Stiles take note:

My church was begun in the 1600’s on Maryland’s Eastern Shore, and the new building opened its doors in 1721. We predate TEC/ECUSA. We bought the land, cleared the forest, paid for the brick and mortar, pews and every furnishing from the altar to the far fence line. We give to our diocese what we can, but we own what we ourselves created, maintain and care for with our hearts and our will. Don’t talk to me about asset management.

The TEC missionary work (excuse me, “partnering work”) will not grow this year because of a lack of funds. I suggest you pay your damn lawyers less and create more missionaries. Your TEC budget does not reflect the goals Christ set for us.

Mainline Presbyterians, 1973: I don’t see a future for this reactionary new “Presbyterian Church of America.”

Mainline Lutherans, 1974: I don’t see any future for LCMS in light of its petty squabbling over Concordia Seminary.

Mainline Baptists, 1979: I don’t see any future for these fundamentalists who are trying to hijack the SBC.

#26,
If we go back to the apostles as the type of individuals who can be ordained, we have to ordain only Jewish males.

“Despite the ACNA’s grand words, the new organization is being built largely with assets belonging to the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada.”

Those darned Reformed Episcopalian ninjas are likely to blame. They must have snuck in and expropriated property TEC didn’t know it had!

Titus wasn’t Jewish.

Christ ordained Saul - Paul

Saul/Paul was still a Jewish male. Unless I am seriously mistaken, all the men Jesus chose were Jewish males.

Shortstop:  Thank you, I stand corrected. I got off on a mental tangent with Tarsus and Hellenist Jewish perspectives of Saul, and his special commission to preach to the Gentiles. My mistake.

Considering that I’ve never heard anyone argue about Holy Orders and ethnicity, I’m really confused about the point you’re trying to make.

[45] shortstop

My argument is predicated upon the pastoral epistles.  It has nothing to do with whom Jesus chose as disciples.  But that isn’t really relevant.  FenelonSpoke is right.  There really isn’t any point in debating this.  I am going to point to the Scriptures, and you are going to tell me they don’t apply anymore.  This is just a microcosm of the intractable nature of this argument, and the difficulty ACNA will eventually have to face. 

I would leave a church that suddenly decided to install a woman as an elder.  Immediately, and without hesitation.  To me it is a direct violation of scripture, and indicates the camel of liberal exegesis is sneaking its nose into the tent.  Those on the other side are just as committed.  So I can think of no way around this dilemma except to establish at least two parallel organizations within ACNA that co-exist without interfering with each other in any way.  ACNA becomes sort of a holding company.  In effect, there would be two separate churches inside this entity called ACNA. The only other alternative is to ban WO altogether.  Which do you think is more likely? 

ACNA must eventually confront this issue.  WO isn’t going away.  And the requirement of some to be separated from WO isn’t going away either.  The Anglo-Catholics have demonstrated that beyond question through their travails in the CoE.  Shoving WO into the corner in the manner ACNA has chosen simply buys some time.  But it won’t stay in that corner forever.  Eventually it will get tired of just sitting there, stand up, and demand attention.

carl

Thank you Progressive Carl for being so much better than all of us here, and better than all the saints who went before us.  It must be a real burden to be so much smarter than St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Dunstan, St. Monica, St. Theresa, etc….....
And I forgot we are now saved by enlightenment, not by grace…..

#48 Carl,
Amen!

The thing about ACNA Anglicans, we reproduce like rabbits.

The Matt and Ann Kennedy Clan alone will be bigger in two generations than the entire Episcopal church.  And the Kennedys are not alone.  My church can hardly get through a service without a baby popping out.

So don’t sweat it, Bishop Robinson.  We’re here.  We’re queer.  Get used to it.

DoW

“So don’t sweat it, Bishop Robinson. We’re here. We’re queer. Get used to it.”
Ummmm! Did you mean to include that DoW? Because I’m not and many I know in ACNA are not.

Yes, TLDillon, I certainly meant to say that we in ACNA are queer (read the first dictionary meaning of queer).  In a world where “normal” means living without a moral compass, disregarding God’s laws, disregarding vows you made simply because of how you feel, we are most certainly odd people (queer).

We also created an Anglican province where one already existed.  This was very odd.  Queer is a good word, and I am stealing it back from the homosexuals, who are quite mainstream these days. 

Face it, bud, straight Christians who stay married to their husbands/wives, have cute babies, and try to live a moral, god-fearing life are the new queers.  Looking at what society says is normal, I am proud to be queer.

DoW

Moot:

It’s not for our generation to fix, and it can’t be fixed with human hands, anyhow.

You may be a “trusting conservative” if . . .

. . . you find the following verse from Newman’s “Day Labourers” strangely comforting:

List, Christian warrior! thou, whose soul is fain
To rid thy Mother of her present chain;
Christ will avenge His Bride; yea, even now
Begins the work, and thou
Shalt spend in it thy strength, but, ere He save,
Thy lot shall be the grave.

Read the whole thing.

http://www.newmanreader.org/works/verses/verse80.html

And when the time comes, bring Mootette up to date on all that’s gone before.

You never know!

Mr e.,

Thanks for this.  It is encouraging. 
I feel weirdly.. privileged. 

(But a good weird). 

- Moot
PS - is there such a thing ??

LOL DoW…I see your point.

FenelonSpoke: “They feel it is a calling and a privilege-not a right.”  A person cannot be “called” to something by God for which they are not qualified, so how can a woman’s desire to be ordained be a “calling?”  It CAN be a “feeling,” but not a “calling” in the Christian sense of the word.  Moreover, to say that Vicki Gene Robinson has never rejected Christ is a bit of an “iffy” statement.  He engages in homosexual acts, divorced his wife to do so and promotes the murder of the unborn, all of which are contrary to the teachings of Christ.  That said, how can Robinson do and believe these things and also believe that Christ is God?  It is like saying I believe in Christ, but I don’t believe he ever existed.  Two such positions cannot exist in the mind or in this universe at the same time and both be true and valid.

VGR is almost right in a sense.  There is no future for a church that tries to split the difference on WO.  It is a second-order issue between churches, but a first-order issue within a church.

WO is not necessarily a first order issue if not imposed. I think there is a parallel between the ACNA and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) on this issue. EPC has managed to hold together since 1981 by agreeing to disagree.

While I hold firmly to the traditionalist principle on the subject,I like the EPC approach, as it allowed faithful pro-life pro-family Presbyterians a framework to depart PCUSA and remain together. They have for nearly 30 years.

[49] stjohnsrector

Thank you Progressive Carl for being so much better than all of us here

Surely you are welcome.  It is my sworn purpose on this wretched list of fundamentalists to bring progressive light to those who still live in darkness; on occasion to find a single clam stranded on the beach and toss it back into the ocean.  My allies will perhaps flinch from saying things so directly.  But I see no reason to keep from you the full force of progressive thought.

progressive carl

And by the way ... I am sure that I am smarter than all those St. Whosit people you listed.  Not that I would ever read them, of course.  We have by now advanced so far beyond them, what would be the point?

[58] AnglicanAgrarian

WO is not necessarily a first order issue if not imposed. I think there is a parallel between the ACNA and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) on this issue.

Hrmmm.  I had to look this up since I really don’t like it when data disagrees with my perfectly conceived notions.  Inevitably, there must be something wrong with the data. 

From the EPC
website

While this is a topic about which many Christians feel strongly, the EPC believes that there can be genuine unity amid diversity on the subject. Each congregation has the right to decide whether to have women officers. The local congregation, subject to presbytery approval, determines whether they will have women as pastors.

The method represented here is to devolve the decision to the lowest level so that no one is compelled.  I am not so sure this method is stable over the long term.  It would seem to bias towards a gradual acceptance of WO.  But that is a different argument.  How would you implement that in a hierarchical church with Bishops except to do what I suggest - break the organization into two parallel structures?

carl

It has to be remembered too that the Presbyterian view of ministry is quite different from the Anglican view.

The theology of leadership does make a difference to how the Bible verses related to it are applied.

Hey Carl,

RE: “So I can think of no way around this dilemma except to establish at least two parallel organizations within ACNA that co-exist without interfering with each other in any way.  ACNA becomes sort of a holding company.  In effect, there would be two separate churches inside this entity called ACNA.”

That’s basically what ACNA has done.  Some dioceses—and after all, the diocese and their bishops are the place of hierarchy—don’t allow WO and others do.  That is, in effect, two parallel organizations, rather like what the Anglican Communion has as a whole with its provinces.  Uganda ordains women.  Nigeria does not.  Both get along just fine, as two churches within one body, the Anglican Communion.

RE: “It is following the same flawed compromise as the CoE.”

Not really—the COE is—or has allowed itself to be—constrained by the laws of the State.  Dioceses do not have that autonomy that ACNA is attempting to allow with its dioceses.

RE: “As it stands, WO is a crack in the foundation of ACNA.  Cracked foundations are dangerous.”

I think all heresies or sins are “cracks in the foundations.”  But then . . . I think all earthly organizations, including denominations and congregations, have cracked foundations.  Certain heresies are “first order” heresies, I think, and certain others are second or tertiary.  It seems to me that gospel believing Christians disagree on the place of WO within those rankings.  For example, moderate kindly Akinola thinks it a tertiary issue, and thus he can be in the same organization as with progressive, liberal Orombi.

#62
It is hard for me to understand how the ordination of women is a tertiary issue when the difference between someone who is against women’s ordination and someone who is for women’s ordination is fundamentally anthropological, assuming that the reason is not because one hates women or is a sexist.  There can only be one orthodox Christian anthropology - not many - because the notion of who “man” is is determined by the truth of Christ’s humanity in relation to our humanity in light of his Divinity, especially when one can ask an important question such as is a priest’s sex impoartnat in light of the high priesthood of Christ?  Even an evangelical Anglican can’t avoid that question.  If this is the case, what was believed to be a tertiary heresy becomes a first order heresy.  My question is how does a fundamentally important issue, especially in our day and age, become a tertiary issue?

RE: “My question is how does a fundamentally important issue, especially in our day and age, become a tertiary issue?”

Hi King E—I think all heresies are about “fundamentally important” issues.  So obviously some “fundamentally important” issues about which a church is heretical ends up being tertiary and secondary rather than primary, unless we say that ALL heretical beliefs are of primary importance . . . in which case I’ll need to separate from every single commenter on this site.

RE: “Even an evangelical Anglican can’t avoid that question.”

Actually, for evangelicals who don’t believe in the salvific nature of the sacraments or in the priest’s re-presenting Christ at the Eucharistic Table, it’s pretty easy not to see any question at all, much less “avoid” something that is not there.  Ergo, the question of WO is not, for the evangelical, “fundamentally anthropological” at all, but merely about what Holy Scripture demands in the Pastoral Epistles.

I expect these differences in the understanding of the sacraments and the ordo salutis between Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals—both the pro-WOs and anti-WOs on the evo side—go a long way towards explaing why there is not only often no agreement, but also so much confusion and miscommunication.

[62] Sarah

Some dioceses—and after all, the diocese and their bishops are the place of hierarchy—don’t allow WO and others do.

And that all seems workable to me so long as women cannot be made bishops.  But I wonder how long that inconsistent compromise can hold.  The parishes in a diocese will not be uniformly determined by the bishop of that diocese. There will be Anglo-Catholic parishes under Evangelical bishops and vice versa.  So the pressure to allow women to be bishops will surface the problem of ACs falling under a female bishop.  At which point the hard lines of geographical boundaries will have to be sacrificed somehow.  And what of evangelical parishes that reject WO?  What provision (if any) will be made for them? 

One thing is certain.  Saying that WO is a secondary issue does not imply that those who reject it are willing to see women placed in positions of authority over them.  It simply means that they are willing to fellowship with others who have a different view.  Much will be determined by how flexible bishops are willing to be regarding the authority they possess within their own diocese.  We shall see.

carl

Hi Carl,

RE: ” At which point the hard lines of geographical boundaries will have to be sacrificed somehow.”

I had understood—although perhaps I am mistaken now that things have changed—that parishes could be a part of affinity clusters that they choose.  Thus an Anglo-Catholic parish does not have to be a part of, say, CANA, but could be a part of the FIF affinity group.  The same could be true of an evangelical parish opposed to WO—they could be a part of AMiA for instance.  So it appears to me that the ACNA desire to not force people into those “hard lines of geographical boundaries” but rather allow affinity clusters is a good thing.

[66] Sarah

I had not heard that.  If this is true, then my concerns are just so much dust in the wind.

carl

Hi carl,
I hesitated to reply to your comment to me way up the line of comments because I did not desire to enter into an exchange characterized by your jumping to a conclusion about how I hold the validity of the Scriptures. After reading comment #66, I think that your jumping to conclusions may not be unusual and that your stepping back from such may not be unusual either. Correct me if I am wrong.  That said, let me state that many folks have argued that WO is wrong because Jesus only chose men - thus my comment that he chose only Jewish men therefor all priest would have to be Jewish as well as men - which is an argument from Scripture. You have moved on to other points which I think Sarah addressed well, much better than I could. The Scriptures are univocal regarding homesexuality but not on the issue of women in leadership. Jesus gave women the responsibility of carrying the message of his resurrection and Paul acknowledged women who were leaders in their churches. So there is room to believe that WO is valid; there are also passages that seem to go the other way. I come down on one side and, it seems, you on another.  If faithful yet fallen sinners such as we can disagree, perhaps we need to take a step back from the brink on this issue and focus on the saving work of Jesus, his dying for our sins and his resurrection so that we might have new life in him. God bless you.

Jesus gave women the responsibility of carrying the message of his resurrection…

This statement when I hear it always makes me shake my head.

Matthew 28:1 - After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.

John 20:1 - Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance.

It was the women who usually anointed the dead with spices as was their custom, So it would stand to reason that since they were the only one there and Jesus had already risen He would tell them to go back and tell the Apostles. He still after all had prophecy to fulfill. These women were not hand picked by Jesus as were the Apostles. So in my view using this analogy for WO is weak and reaching. These women were on their way to do as their custom directs them to do.

Been away for a while—
#10 & #11
No, “Bishops” may lay hands on anyone, may even make them “pastors” or “superintendents”; but, the Pope himself, nor all the Patriarchs can make a priest by laying hands upon a woman. Holy Church has decided that long ago.
  “And I hold n veneration,,
  For the love of him alone,
  Holy Church as His creation,
  And her teachings as His own.”  JH Newman

Sarah,
I never said all heresies are of primary importance; I said ordination of women is of primary importance because it hits to the core of who we are as human beings: male and female.  If you deny God made us male and female you are a dualist.  If ordination to the priesthood requires the ordinandi to be male than you are a dualist (a gnostic) if you think women can be priests.  If women can’t be priests then we are in trouble.

RE: “I said ordination of women is of primary importance . . . “

I understand that you asserted that—but I responded to your question.  You asked: “how does a fundamentally important issue, especially in our day and age, become a tertiary issue?”

I answered that.  The way a “fundamentally important issue” becomes a “tertiary issue” is in the same way that so many many other heresies—all of which are “fundamentally important”—that people propagate become “tertiary issues.”  Answer—not all heresies are primary issues.

I understand that WO *is* a primary issue for Anglo-Catholics and *some* [not all] anti-WO evangelicals.  But I merely answered your question as to how a “fundamentally important issue” like a heresy, may also be a tertiary issue.

RE: “If ordination to the priesthood requires the ordinandi to be male than you are a dualist (a gnostic) if you think women can be priests.”

Right—but pro-WO evangelicals don’t believe that ordination to the priesthood—obviously—“requires the ordinand to be male” or they would not purport to ordain women to the priesthood.

Again—a duh statement—but evangelicals don’t believe about ordination and the priesthood as Anglo-Catholics do.

Perhaps I’m over simplifying, but my understanding is that evangelicals consider ordination to be a vocation or a profession rather than a ontological metaphysical state of being.  Ordination is viewed as licensing someone to do a job rather than imparting some spiritual grace and power.

AndrewA, I can’t speak for all evangelicals with regards to your comment.

I’m an evangelical.  I oppose WO as against scripture.  I believe that ordination is a sacrament and thus imparts an inward and spiritual grace.  I do not believe that the sacraments are, however, a salvific issue.  Nor do I believe that the male priest re-presents Jesus Christ.  WO is of tertiary importance to me.

Most of the evangelicals I hang out with who are Anglican either agree with every statement above—or do not oppose WO but agree with every other statement.
; > )

69 -

Just continue shaking your head. Do you think that the women coming to do their “custom” caused Jesus to tell them? Or did God use the occasion of the demonstration of their devotion to him to give them the Good News?

Carl,
I do not think it a coincidence that ACNA has somewhat copied the EPC approach to this thorny idssue. EPC has a major presnce and is growing in the greater Pittsburgh area, I am sure that Archbishop Bob was aware of their solution.
Since as someone else said, every church body has a cracked foundation, I am satified with this solution indefinitely. But…. if WO were brought to my own parish, I would probably defect to LCMS. 

Sarah,
Re: commnet #74 you stated:
</blockquote>I do not believe that the sacraments are, however, a salvific issue. </blockquote>
There are two sacraments generally necessary to Salvation. I think the question over WO is who may preside over that second sacrament (ie validity) I oppose WO for the same reasons you do, but the sacramental validity is also troubling.

shortstop #68,

There are a lot of people in ECUSA that don’t find the Scriptures to be univocal regarding homesexuality, and they have plenty of arguments to back up their view.  They would say, along with you, “If faithful yet fallen sinners such as we can disagree, perhaps we need to take a step back from the brink on this issue and focus on the saving work of Jesus, his dying for our sins and his resurrection so that we might have new life in him.”  That’s the problem we get when we start discarding what is univocal on some of these issues, which is the witness of the Church for nearly all of its history.

You want to discard the revealed order for ordination, and ECUSA wants to discard the revealed order for marriage.  It’s two sides of the same coin.

Oh, groovy-Here we go with the debates on ordination again-and on and on and on.

[68] shortstop

I think that your jumping to conclusions may not be unusual and that your stepping back from such may not be unusual either.

Only a fool objects to admitting that he is wrong.    I thought the Affinity groups were only for parishes outside the current collection of dioceses.  If what Sarah is saying is true - that a parish can opt out from under its current bishop - then they have already adopted what I thought they would have to adopt. 

I hesitated to reply to your comment to me way up the line of comments because I did not desire to enter into an exchange characterized by your jumping to a conclusion about how I hold the validity of the Scriptures.

Let me apologize for any implication I may have created.  It’s simply that I have had this argument before.  All arguments for WO eventually must confront Paul’s clear statement “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man.”  Somehow advocates of WO must defang that verse.  That’s all I meant.  I think the attempts to ‘defang’ it proceed from poor exegesis that will eventually open the door to other more destructive innovations.

carl

74/Sarah agreed

shortstop,
Great baseball position by the way…..
Both but is no valid reason to ordain women. It is IMHO a reach and a stretch.

It is possible to have a CANA parish under a CANA bishop in the geographical location of a Anglo-Catholic Diocese. I believe San Joaquin is an example of this. So,  parishes and bishops do not have to accept WO in their area, or they could if that is what they believe. I also believe, that this issue is being used as wedge to separate us. In fact, we are unified in our belief in Jesus Christ as THE WAY, Our Lord etc and that to me is not only refreshing but encouraging. Obviously, the bishop from New Hampshire and probably others who think along those lines, find this unsettling because their areas are ripe for church plants. Look for more complaints on how ACNA is taking away their people, where in fact ACNA is trying to bring people to Christ - not steal TEC’s monetary assests.

Well, every Christian is a material heretic but the Rock is not cracked.  Anyway, the 39 Articles are nice and dandy but there have been so much development of doctrine since then that we can also argue that the Council of Trent’s definition of the 7 Sacraments does not contradict the 39 Articles definition of 2 Sacraments since they both argue that Baptism and Eucharist are necessary for our salvation.  The difference is the 39 Articles left many questions open and Trent closed as many as possible.  Hopefully, we Anglicans can update, if you will, the 39 Articles while keeping as many questions undefined as we can - we are so good at that.  I would like to see if we can make a contribution to the question of matter and form - and no Evangelical can honestly say there is no matter and form - it would contradict nature.

Martin5, the Diocese of San Joaquin is affiliated with FiFNA through our bishop, +John-David Schofield.  I believe you’re right in saying that the WO issue is being used in an attempt to separate us, but I am quite certain that we are not going to let this divide us.  The old saw which says “There is a lot more that unites us than separates us” is true, and we’re determined not to let this tear us apart.  Christ will decide the issue, and not US.  We are HIS Church, and not ours alone.

#82 MArtin5,
Kevin Kallsen of AnglicanTV has posted a great video interview with Bishop John-David on his Facebook in which the Bishop talks about this very issue and a few other things that I think many would find interesting. But alas it hasn’t seemed to have made the thread grade for SFIF or no one has checked it out yet…..wither way it is a great and enlightening interview on which the Bishop talks about boundaries and governing.

I agree.  Lets not make it the issue.  I was just having a brain exercise since I am unemployed and have a lot of time on my hands.  Hugs anyone?

Cennydd,
I must have been mistaken when I had read somewhere that a parish in the San Joaquin area chose to associate with I thought, CANA. I know SJ is FIF, as is mine FW.
Thanks, DL. I will go check it out. I think some worry that this might cause competition between the different groups. I think the only ones to really worry about that is, TEC.

Martin5, you might want to check in on some of the parishes in the San Jose area which have left the Diocese of El Camino Real in recent months, and are now part of the ACNA.

Martin5 #87,
You were correct in your thinking that a parish in San Joaquin did associate with another Anglican body and not the So. Cone but were only incorrect on which Anglican body. Let me help ....It was St. Paul’s Modesto who decided, after our second vote to leave TEc, had as a parish decided to align with AmiA. They have since given their keys to their building and the building and their property to Lamb and the rump of 815. Sadly but then they are in a different kind of a legal position as just a parish then we are as a diocese as a whole.
Hope this helps

Thank you. I know of some but I will check on others.

martin5,
St. Paul’s Modesto is the only one in the San Joaquin diocese that chose to go to a different Anglican body (AmiA) other than the So. Cone or to stay with TEc.

Thank you TL. It is nice to know I haven’t completely lost it ... just partially,