Posted on 12/22/2006 7:01:55 PM PST by sionnsar
As a theological liberal, I take a rather dim view of the doctrine of providence. Still, I have to say that there was something vaguely providential about the way events unfolded in the Episcopal Church this past week.
Last Sunday, eight Episcopal churches in the Diocese of Virginia voted to break away from the U.S. Episcopal Church.... In fact, it seems to me that this couldn't have happened at a better time, with better people, or in a better way. The Episcopal Church may even be stronger for it in the long run.
...
Astrid Storm, an Episcopal priest, is the vicar of St. Nicholas-on-the-Hudson. She lives in New York City.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. I dont blame them for leaving.
The timing of this decision is also important. It came at a time of relative calm and good will in the Episcopal Church, and many people have questioned the reasons—or lack thereof—behind it. The Rev. William L. Sachs, director of the Center for Reconciliation and Mission at St. Stephen's Episcopal Church in Richmond, Va., told me that "since 2003 the Episcopal Church has worked very hard at listening to the Anglican Communion and trying to honor the Windsor Report and, in fact, there has been a moratorium on the consecration of gay bishops. So, what have they got to complain about?" The election of a female presiding bishop with liberal views on gays and lesbians is the closest he could think of to a proximate cause for last Sunday's decision, but considering Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori's recent efforts to accommodate those who don't share her more liberal viewpoint on homosexuality, and considering many people's support for women clergy in these breakaway churches, even that seems an unconvincing provocation.
This is the last paragraph. First paragraph the author is glad to see them go, but in the last, she still doesn't understand.
"Astrid Storm, an Episcopal priest,"
Ah, well....
She's been vicar for exactly THREE MONTHS, and was only ordained 5 years ago. She doesn't identify one of the churches she was at before, other than to say it was "in Ohio." Huh?
The extremely barebones (and weirdly precious) website for this very small mission parish is here.
They only claim "40 to 50" people . . . which means it's probably a lot smaller.
This is Slate, they take what they can get.
My guess is that this has been in the works for a while and the parishes were getting organized and lining up the lawyers.
The fact is, this would have happened a long time ago if not for the Episcopal church's hold on the property.
They mean Astrid Storm an Episcopal "priest," considering women can't contract Holy Orders by divine right.
I know her...she was a substitute priest once in our parish..she's waaaaaaay out there...very ultra left..her homily gave me a severe headache, as I recall..
When Jesus rose from the dead, the first people who saw Him were women. This shows me that he thought women were rather important because, in that time and that place, women were not exactly taken seriously. The fact that He showed that much trust in women is a reason why I have no problem with women as priests. It's the theology of the individual women that bother me (unfortunately, most women who become priests are left-wing nutjobs). Just as there are men whose theology I find offensive and whose qualifications for the priesthood I question.
I used to be an Episcopalian, so I know what I'm talking about here.
You have no problem with female priests in principle, and you've met one who's pretty good. O.K. Now let's look more closely.
1. Jesus was not at all afraid to defy tradition. He did it every day (eating with tax collectors and prostitutes, not washing his hands before he ate, working on the Sabbath), right up to (and especially) the most sacred Jewish tradition by stating publicly that he was the Son of God. No question that he valued women highly, more highly than was usual at the time, but he valued everyone highly. That has nothing to do with who he called to be a priest (Apostle). If he had wanted to make a woman one of his Apostles, public disapproval would not have mattered one bit to him. But he did not. And there's a reason for that.
2. If you belong to a liturgical church (e.g. Catholic, Episcopal, Lutheran) in which the central act of the worship service is the Eucharist, there is a scriptural, traditional, and ontological problem with a female celebrant. The priest is alter Christus, another Christ, a stand-in if you will. And Christ chose to be male. He is the husband of the Church, which is the bride of Christ. When a woman stands in that place, it's a gender-bending event.
3. As a practical matter, the trend you observe is absolute. Female priests are overwhelmingly if not exclusively liberal in their theology and in their politics. They are Democrats or Socialists, pro-abortion, pro homosexual agenda, and anti-tradition. They are iconoclasts. If you let them in, they destroy your church. Just ask the Episcopalians.
4. For 28 years, I was in the ECUSA parish that was the training parish for the diocese. Every ordained priest in the diocese was assigned to our church for a year or more right after ordination. With ONE exception, none of the female ordinands were even remotely qualified to serve. They couldn't preach, but they couldn't even run a parish because they didn't know how to lead or reach a consensus. They talked, and talked, and talked, but never got anywhere. I think it's because they didn't really WANT to be priests. Some were making a political statement; some were trying to escape their own demons; some were frankly out lesbians who sought to "change" the church. Even the one who was a decent preacher and had pretty good administrative talent (she went straight from her service in that parish to a large parish of her own, which shows how thin the talent is) was outrageously liberal in theology and politics, and voted and preached in favor of the consecration of the Bishop of New Hampshire.
I think you're wishing for something that will never happen as a practical matter and is theologically impossible. And what you do get is very destructive.
She looked pretty out there to me . . . and I've seen a lot of 'em. I guess in the South even the ultra leftists are more restrained.
"When Jesus rose from the dead, the first people who saw Him were women. This shows me that he thought women were rather important because, in that time and that place, women were not exactly taken seriously. The fact that He showed that much trust in women is a reason why I have no problem with women as priests."
If you can get women priests from that, then you can get anything from the Bible.
I would guess this was actually ghostwritten by the media spinners at 815 (ECUSA headquarters)for Priestess Astrid to submit.
Note her use of the term "proximate cause". That is lawyer-speak, and I have never heard anyone other than a lawyer use it.
Methinks the Chancellor, Beers, had a hand in this. I believe he has a law degree.
In her mind theological issues don't matter, because in her mind there is no such thing as truth. To her theology is virtually the same as ideology.
Well, there's your problem. The people are the church, not buildings.
Act 8:1 And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.
I wonder what they used to scatter all those buildings?(plus how many rooms were in apostle Andrew)
No; the correct title in the Episcopal Church is priest, for either sex.
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.