Posted on 02/26/2006 4:14:59 PM PST by sionnsar
At the close of the debate in the Synod of the Church of England in early February 2006, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, said: “People have talked at times about differences of opinion and how the Church can live with differences of opinion. I think that the problem is, for those who are not content with the idea that we should go forward along the line of ordaining women as bishops, the problem is not one of opinion, it’s rather one of obedience. It’s one of obedience to Scripture, or obedience to the consensus of the Church Catholic. And, while that’s not a view I wholly share, I think we ought to recognize that that’s where it comes from, those who hold to it are not just thinking ‘this is a matter of opinion’. And therefore it is rightly and understandably a lot harder to deal with dissent if you are talking about what fundamentally comes down to a question of whether you obey God or human authority. That’s why it’s serious. That’s why it’s difficult. It is more than ‘opinion’.”
One theme of Dr. Rowan’s address is that there is a Tradition that cannot be ignored. The Tradition that cannot be ignored is Catholic Orders. The Archbishop recognizes that women’s ordination is not a question that can be answered by opinion polls. He recognizes that women priests and bishops are an innovation. It remains to be seen if Dr. Williams also recognizes that this innovation is the result of and contributes to disorder in Anglicanism. Underlying the question is a biblical proposition that has deep and wide ranging implications. The Church has until the late 20th century refused to ordain women as priests because of Scripture and Tradition. Scripture and Tradition tell us that male and female, while equal in dignity and status, represent a God-established binary distinction. This binary distinction speaks of God and his People and of Christ and his Church. It speaks foremost of the nature of God’s love. This love, requiring unity yet distinction or “I-Thou”, is good, tender, just and eternal. In the Kingdom the distinction of male and female will continue, because it is eternal. Eternal verities are at stake here.
Those who cannot hear this are distracted by language that suggests injustice. Words like “patriarchy” and “hierarchy” are not very helpful in getting at the mystery of God-ordered binary distinctions. Could these terms be used to describe other binary distinctions, such as light and dark or hot and cold? No. They would be meaningless.
Consider how my esteemed friend, Dr. Peter Toon, frames the question. He writes: “St Paul spoke of the hierarchy of holy relations in this way—God the Father, the Incarnate Son, the man/father and the women/wife. In God’s order the Son is subject to the Father and the man and woman to the Incarnate Son, and the woman to the man. Yet this is the subjection of love and service within a gracious and generous patriarchy. Thus God’s word in creation and in redemption forbids the woman to rule over the man; rather it requires the man to rule yet with nothing less than the love of Christ.”
This is the typical traditionalist presentation of the matter, but does it square fully with Scripture and Tradition? It depends on where the Apostle Paul was drawing his idea of “holy relations.” I can argue convincingly that Paul’s thoughts are informed by his Semitic training rather than by Greek philosophy. This means that he was thinking in terms of binary distinctions, which orient all the Hebrew Scriptures, beginning with Genesis. The key number is 2 and the key concept is “one yet distinct” and the result is a theological and practical tension that preserves balance. Over this is another layer of thought that holds 3 as the key number and extends the male-female “one yet distinct” to the Human-Creator relationship (a triangulation). These concepts must be considered in the context of Afro-Asiatic languages, which are bi-consonantal and tri-consonantal. The numbers 2 and 3 and binary distinctions are so ingrained in ancient Semitic thought that it is inconceivable that Paul, a student of the great Gamaliel, neglected them. I renounced my vows as a priest “because I no longer believe that women should be priests.” I did this with some heaviness of heart because I did not want to hurt my lady friends who are priests or in any way to diminish their ministries. In my letter to Bishop Sauls I could have written, “because I no longer believe that I should be a priest.” This too would be true, but would not raise the principle of violation of Scripture and Tradition. Thus, I felt compelled to state my renunciation as a principle.
I do not intend to suggest that women priests should do what I have done (unless God directs them to do so). Still, the question must be raised! Why is Anglicanism out of line with the catholic orders of Rome and Orthodoxy? Has stepping out of this Tradition resulted in a significantly weaker church? There can be no doubt.
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. As usual, an outstanding post.
"One theme of Dr. Rowan’s address is that there is a Tradition that cannot be ignored. The Tradition that cannot be ignored is Catholic Orders."
Only one tradition of many that cannot be ignored. It is, though, a tradition that, through its being ignored, is building irreparable walls between Anglicanism and Orthodoxy.
It is hard to believe that the future Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) (the first primate of the ROCOR) strongly believed, prior to the Russian Revolution, that Anglicanism being brought into union with Orthodoxy was not only possible, but probable, given time.
He wouldn't recognize the current Church of England.
I would just like to point out that not all of "Anglicanism" is ignoring this tradition. To the contrary, it is extremely strongly retained in some quarters, including my own. Even (or particularly) in CofE this is a quite divisive element that could lead to two separate groups, one of which might be able to find union with Orthodoxy.
By Anglicanism, I am referring, of course, to the Church of England, which is still the point of unity for the entire Anglican communion.
Even most "conservatives" in ECUSA and the other "first world" Anglican Communion churches seem not to have a problem with the ordination of women. The C of E may be an exception, but probably only because it could cost them their leadership role in the Anglican world. I don't see significant hotbeds of opposition to women's ordination in the C of E on the grounds that it is just plain wrong, contrary to tradition, not subject to compromise. But of course, you are more familiar with the scene than I am.
If a split in the Anglican Communion comes about, with a dividing line being the ordination of women, then there would still be a very long and rocky path to union of the traditional side with Orthodoxy, but the path would still be there.
Another sad day. Hoping that Church would be ONE again. Now, how gonna settle Gay can become priest, woman can become priest and many more. It seem SOMEONE try to postpone the CHURCH unity. Let us pray for MIRACLE so that CHURCH can be one again.
The writer seems to be missing both the AoC's point and the truth underlying that point. Those who are objecting to women Bishops are doing it not because of tradition, but for the opposite, or protestant reason - because it is scripturally mandated.
Okay.
Even most "conservatives" in ECUSA and the other "first world" Anglican Communion churches seem not to have a problem with the ordination of women. The C of E may be an exception, but probably only because it could cost them their leadership role in the Anglican world. I don't see significant hotbeds of opposition to women's ordination in the C of E on the grounds that it is just plain wrong, contrary to tradition, not subject to compromise. But of course, you are more familiar with the scene than I am.
I suspect the issue is that those who have a problem with the ordination of women have long since left. It wasn't just a matter of ordaining them; I recall reading that, once ordained, the women priests were forced upon thos who wouldn't accept them. (I was paying no attention to ECUSA during that time; all I know is second-hand.)
I don't know about "significant" hot beds of opposition, but they do exist -- and the reason is more based on scripture and less on tradition.
There is not unity on this issue even in the African churches, it appears. Okay someplaces, not elsewhere.
I renounced my priesthood because after much consideration and study, I had to face these facts.
1. Women are not ordained priests in either Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism. Women are given numerous other significant roles in those churches, but not the office of priest. We do well to recognize that these churches continue in the Tradition of 2000 years in upholding this decision.
2. The Protestant use of Scripture passages to justify ordaining women as pastors, not priests, is beside the point since we are speaking or "catholic orders."
3. Any interpretation of Scripture that separates it from Tradition will lead to error. Some errors are more serious that others.
4. ECUSA does not hold to Catholic orders or respect the historic tension of Scripture and Tradition.
5. The question of women's ordination has never been submitted for open deliberation in Anglicanism. It was presented as a done deal by ECUSA, along with the 1979 ECUSA (revisionist) prayer book.
6. Many orthodox people left ECUSA in the 1970's because of these 2 innovations, weaking ECUSA further.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.