Posted on 01/21/2007 6:16:50 PM PST by sionnsar
The Episcopal Church has embraced a mandatory women’s ordination policy for more than 30 years and recommendations by the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Panel of Reference that the Church clarify the permissive nature of its canon are “antithetical to our polity and therefore not appropriate,” according to Bonnie Anderson, president of the House of Deputies.
In a Jan. 12 letter sent to Archbishop Rowan Williams and the members of the panel, Mrs. Anderson asked the panel to issue a correction to its December 2006 report which concluded that “no diocese or parish should be compelled to accept the ministry of word or sacrament from an ordained woman.” She also requested that in the future the panel ensure “adequate representation from the province directly affected by the recommendations.”
The report was issued after the leadership of the Diocese of Fort Worth filed an appeal in July 2005 claiming to be subject to “marginalization and intimidation” within the church and expressing concern that when it elects a successor to Bishop Jack Leo Iker it will be unable to receive the necessary consents to proceed with a consecration if the bishop-elect does not approve of the ordination of women.
The 13-member Panel of Reference contains one Episcopalian, the Rt. Rev. Claude E. Payne, retired Bishop of Texas, and two staff members from the Anglican Consultative Council. In preparing its report on the appeal by the Diocese of Fort Worth, the panel consulted with Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, who retired before the report was published. Under the Canons and Constitution of the General Convention, the Presiding Bishop oversees the disciplinary process when a bishop is accused of wrongdoing. According to the panel report, Bishop Griswold said the canon on women’s ordination remained permissive even after a 1997 amendment.
“The interpretation of The Episcopal Church’s canons is the responsibility of our ecclesiastical trial courts when a clergy person is charged with a violation of them and of the General Convention in all other matters,” Mrs. Anderson wrote in her letter. “The same is true for the question of whether or not the ‘Dallas Plan’ complies with the canons. Only our ecclesiastical courts or the General Convention are authorized to make those interpretations.”
In an interview with The Living Church, Mrs. Anderson said her letter to the panel was done “entirely on my own initiative” and was “completely and solely my responsibility.” She shared it with her council of advice and Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori the day before she sent it,” she said, but “didn’t ask for any comments.”
“The Episcopal Church decides if it needs clarification of our canons,” she said. “We have a clearly defined way to do that. In my opinion the issue of women’s ordination is settled.”
Mrs. Anderson said The Episcopal Church has been “tolerant and charitable” toward those like Bishop Iker who hold to the minority position. She declined to comment on whether she would now prefer to bring charges against those remaining bishops and clergy in the Church who maintain that God has not called women to ordained orders.
[Red color emphasis of final sentence is mine... --sionnsar]
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. So TEC's polity trumps Scripture? Interesting!
Agree … where in the Bible does it consecrate the ordination of women. All my sudies indicat that women are to be silent within the church.
Any women that feels that she is called to the priesthood is delusional. She may be a great preacher and great adminitrater of the chuch but she is missing her real calling. Something other than the Priesthood.
3:1 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.
3:2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
3:3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money.
3:4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity
3:5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?),
These points have been brought out so many times that I didn’t want to bring them up again.
Got lazy … thank you for pointing them out again.
I understand...I just think it is important to keep pointing to this passage. It is key to the entire discussion...and so frequently ignored by the TEC.
"In an interview with The Living Church, Mrs. Anderson said her letter to the panel was done “entirely on my own initiative” and was “completely and solely my responsibility.” She shared it with her council of advice and Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori the day before she sent it,” she said, but “didn’t ask for any comments.”
This is the passage I find most interesting and revelatory because it shows that TEC is now openly heretical. It is always the heretic's point to say that they, on their own authority, are putting forward the position and that they need no other corroboration. Thus I reserve 'delusional' for those who don't know what they're doing. This woman knows exactly what she's doing and it's a naked power play.
Thanks for pinging this, sionnsar, I'm preaching on why APCK is not part of that circus any longer this Sunday and might be able to work this in as an example of where the church was going, though most openly denied it at the time and the few who did notice were either forced out or shunned.
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.