The Question of Female “Bishops” and the Unity of the ACNA

The following link will take you to a sermon by Dr. Ann Paton of the Diocese of Pittsburgh that was sent to me this morning.Dr. Paton is ordained and conservative. In this sermon she calls for the ACNA to remove any restrictions to the consecration of female bishops. I hesitated to link her sermon because I know well how contentious these sorts of discussions can be, but it is important, in my view, that issues like this, once raised, are discussed and debated thoroughly. Indeed, if the new province is going to survive they must be dealt with definitively. Canon 4 of the Provisional Canons of the ACNA reads:

Eligibility for bishop must include being a duly ordained male[bold added] presbyter of at least 35 years of age, who possesses those qualities for a bishop which are in accordance with Scriptural principles, and who has fully embraced the Fundamental Declarations of this Province.

I can tell you that, regardless of varied personal views and positions, there is wide, broad, and deep consensus on the part of ACNA leaders that the consent to the election of female bishops would doom the province.

The genius of the WO compromise adopted at the most recent Common Cause Council is that it commits the province, constitutionally, to a policy of non-interference. Using language adapted from the First Amendment of the US Constitution, Article VIII.2 of the Constitution of the ACNA reads:

"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."

Dioceses, networks, and clusters are free to determine their own practice without fear of penalty or intervention by any specially charged "compliance" task force. This is, admittedly, something less than full theological unity and it does, by implication, suggest that the question of ordained women in the church is a second order question (as many, myself included, believe it to be), but it is sufficient for the day. It provides for the highest level of unity possible between those who hold different views of the place of women in ministry.

The election of a female candidate for bishop would push this delicate compromise to the breaking point. For Anglo-Catholics (and I hope my Anglo-Catholic friends will correct me if I am misrepresenting their views here) a bishop is not only the overseer of his particular jurisdiction, but he is also a bishop of the Church in general. He is the embodiment of the doctrine and discipline of the Church as a whole. So in addition to the simple invalidity of such an act on a sacramental level, to purport to consecrate a female to the office of bishop would also represent an attempt to alter the essential character of Christ's body in a way that the ordination of presbyters does not. For that reason, those in the ACNA opposed to WO are able to remain in communion with male bishops who ordain women but they would not be able to remain in communion with female bishops.

The election of a female bishop by any entity within the ACNA would also split evangelicals. Many evangelicals in the ACNA (I'm thinking of the REC and AMiA folks in particular) do not accept the ordination of women to the diaconate and/or presbyterate on biblical rather than ecclesial grounds. The consecration of a female to the office of bishop, the primary leadership position in the church, would, for many evangelicals (myself included), represent a direct challenge to the scriptural principle of male headship in a way that the ordination of women to the deaconate or presbyterate does not.

Many, both Anglo-Catholics and evangelicals, would be unable to remain united within the province if women were consecrated as bishops. It would be suicidal.

Within the larger context of the core theological unity of the ACNA as expressed in Article I of the Constitution, there are many matters, both theological and ecclesiological, that set members of the ACNA at odds. It is not good to suppress debate of these things for the sake of unity. Unity suffers as a result of such superficiality. There must, after all, be "divisions among us" as Paul says. At the same time, there are certain matters, and WO is one of them, with the potential to permanently divide. Debate must continue but to move from the present constitutional and canonical position would destroy the greater unity of the new church. While there are certain matters worth separation--those that constitute clear, persistent, and unrepentant violations of biblical commands and principles--the election of women to the office of bishop, an act unmentioned, unmandated, and in my opinion unwarranted in scripture, is certainly not one of them. 278 Comments • Print-friendly • Print-friendly w/comments Comments:

I think that a discussion on WO is important but not at this time. When that time comes, I hope it is dealt with properly with discernment, and not forced through like TEC. I spoke to a female priest in Canada a couple of years ago. There was a position for bishop coming up and though she would have made a great bishop, as she did a priest, she knew she would not be considered because she is a woman. This is Canada! The land of SS blessings! She and her church are orthodox and the last I heard they were locked out of their church and with the Southern Cone, now the ACNA. So, my opinion is, we are not ready to have the discussion yet, but we should do so in the future. [1] Posted by martin5 on 12-30-2008 at 10:24 AM • top

“This is going to sound something like church politics, but it really isn’t, it really isn’t.”

Unfortunately, yes, it really is church politics. This kind of stuff does not belong in a sermon. It’s the wrong place, the wrong audience, and the wrong purpose. The laity are there to worship and receive a Christmas message, not to listen to anyone (male or female) talk about the pros and cons of banning or promoting female bishops.

Ms. Payton is indeed politicking and to a crowd who can’t do anything about it except either:

Her message is pointless in the context in which it was delivered except to “stir up the troops,” which is oh, so reminiscent of how we got female clerics and gay clerics in the first place.

Finally, I observe that she must have taken a vow to be submissive/obedient to her bishop. Her bishop has signed onto an agreement that bans women as bishops. If she doesn’t like it, she should take the matter to him in private or discuss with other female priests in private. In no event should she be publically subverting the position her bishop has taken.

Shame on her for politicking. Shame on her for her bald face attempts to deny it’s politicking. Shame on her for publically embarrassing her bishop by subverting his decisions.

I know I’ll get a lot of responses to the contrary. You’re welcome to your opinion. I’m welcome to mine, thank you very much [2] Posted by Antique on 12-30-2008 at 10:46 AM • top

This is the next level of the renewal: an honest debate about the practice of ordaining women to the offices of deacon, priest, and bishop. This issue holds promise of immolating the current alliance because it is such a serious hot button among some of the constituent members of Common Cause. In part, APA left Common Cause over this issue.

The leaders must be very careful. To dogmatically pronounce WO as acceptable practice for all members of the alliance would doom it. So would forbidding it. Truth is that Anglicanism does not have consensus on this issue. The Romans and Easter Orthodox forbid the practice, which should say something to us.

Huge mistake. If disatisfaction on this issue would cause her to go back to TEC, I would rather she do so now. [4] Posted by Going Home on 12-30-2008 at 11:04 AM • top

I agree with Antique’s evaluation in #2. Further, her bishop should discipline her, quietly. If she persists in behavior that is schismatic and disobedient, she should be defrocked. Lord have mercy on captive congregations. There’s nothing worse than sermonizing which makes the proclamation of the Word into a bully pulpit for agendas. TEC has made ordination itself and the denomination entire into such a bully pulpit. TEC should be quietly disciplined and if it persists, defrocked. [5] Posted by monologistos on 12-30-2008 at 11:05 AM • top

#2 I agree. Not the place, not the time, not the audience. [6] Posted by martin5 on 12-30-2008 at 11:08 AM • top

I disagree with the sermon...but I do think perhaps some of the criticism above has been unfair. If she thinks this is a “gospel issue” then by all means she must preach on it...It simply might also mean that the ACNA is not the right place for her. In any case, debates on this are welcome from my perspective and everyone ought to be fully convinced in his or her own mind while at the same time open to correction [7] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 12-30-2008 at 11:11 AM • top

Well, she’s right about one thing: if you admit that women can be ordained to the priesthood, there is no logical or scriptural reason why women cannot be ordained to the episcopate. At that point, it simply become misogyny.

Just one of the many incoherencies involved in supporting WO while remaining “orthodox.” [8] Posted by fatherlee on 12-30-2008 at 11:17 AM • top

[2], I certainly can’t speak for the good Bishop of Pittsburgh, but my guess is that Robert Duncan would be the last one to want to silence the Rev. Anne Payton. Ordination vows include obedience, but not a gag order. If obedience meant not speaking one’s conscience in the theological forums of the day, there’s hardly a priest worth his or her collar who would not be guilty of breaking such a Draconian vow. Now, this is not to say that speaking out would not bring certain consequences. In the secular world, speaking out against one’s boss is generally considered a CLM or “career-limiting move.” Although not privy to the personal politics in Pittsburgh, I would still wager that the Rev. Anne Payton may not find herself in line for Chairman of the Standing Committee any time before Hell freezes over, but this does not mean that anyone is justified in calling down shame upon her. http://www.anglikin.blogspot.com [9] Posted by Anglicat on 12-30-2008 at 11:21 AM • top

“Well, she’s right about one thing: if you admit that women can be ordained to the priesthood, there is no logical or scriptural reason why women cannot be ordained to the episcopate.”

Perhaps this is true from an Anglo-Catholic perspective, but not necessarily from an evangelical one.

The primary issue from the evangelical perspective is headship. Some would argue it is possible for women to be ordained for ministry as assisting ministers so long as they never serve as rector or “head” of a parish. Their authority would in that way be delegated...from the rector rather than their own. The rector would be the head of the parish.

Still others would argue that in Anglican ecclesiology, “headship” resides primarily in the bishop not the rector. So female rectors are possible so long as the bishop is male.

So while it is certainly possible that biblically speaking both positions are unwarranted...it is not necessarily true that they are irrational or misogynist. [10] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 12-30-2008 at 11:27 AM • top

If it is, then those who reject WO are sinning by rejecting a segment of laity who have in fact been called to be priests and/or bishops.

If it is not acceptable to God, then no amount of appeal to egalitarianism will change the wrongness of it.

It can’t be adiaphora, even if bishops declare it to be, and even if we sit down at the table like good boys and girls to discuss these matters, and depart agreeing to disagree.

Not possible for it to be adiaphora. Never was. I do agree though (as an evangelical) with Matt+ that this is not salvific. [11] Posted by Moot on 12-30-2008 at 11:27 AM • top

Matt, Just for my own information, are “Dr Anne Payton” and the “Rev. Ann Paton” (who gave the sermon, and is noted in Ascension’s newsletter) one and the same person? http://www.ascensionpittsburgh.org/images/pdf/December 2008.pdf see page 12. Note that the URL of your link specifies “Paton” and not “Payton”. I also note that nowhere on the ascension website http://www.ascensionpittsburgh.org/ is there any mention of the ACNA or of +Bob Duncan as their bishop. I am not in Pittsburgh and have no first hand knowledge of how the transition out of TEC is being handled. Is Ascension an ACNA parish or TEC parish as things stand now? I do want to be sure I know more about who is who and what is what before commenting. [12] Posted by tjmcmahon on 12-30-2008 at 12:01 PM • top

Others who do not allow ordination of women include Baptists of a “conservative” nature, PCA (Presbyterian Church in America), Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, Lutheran Church Wisconsin Synod, and a number of other, conservative Protestant groups. [13] Posted by Daniel on 12-30-2008 at 12:06 PM • top

Sorry, link above did not work, try this: newsletter [14] Posted by tjmcmahon on 12-30-2008 at 12:06 PM • top

It surely cannot be that women cannot instruct men, else your instruction that WO is either acceptable or unacceptable must be rejected until a man says it. smile Sorry if that is a moot point. smile [15] Posted by monologistos on 12-30-2008 at 12:24 PM • top

Hi tjmcmahon, the person who sent me the sermon wrote “Payton” and I took it for granted. I assume now that I have checked your links that it is Paton…

Ascension is listed by the Diocesan website as a parish of the diocese http://www.pitanglican.org/parishes?keywords=Ascension [17] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 12-30-2008 at 12:34 PM • top

Although you make a good point, I do think that in a sense we need to treat women’s ordination as adiaphora because this is an issue on which we cannot reach a firm conclusion from Scripture. When one approaches the Bible as God’s inerrant word and engages in thoughtful, prayerful, and faithful study, there is a good deal of evidence to support both sides.

I do think that it’s important not to table this discussion until a future date. Even if it’s tough work, we need to continually search the Scriptures and seek the Holy Spirit’s guidance. It’s an important issue to work through, because--as we have seen in TEC--the leadership of the Church is of the utmost importance. We must be faithful in how we set up our leadership (including setting guidelines for leaders derived from Holy Scripture), and leaders must be faithful in how they shepherd.

I think the ACNA compromise represents a great deal of wisdom and Christian charity. Remember, a compromise is not intended to satisfy everyone’s point of view; a compromise helps us move past one issue in a loving and grace-filled way to more important ones. While the issue of women’s ordination will not go away and certainly deserves our attention, the compromise allows us to be faithful to Scripture, not get “stuck” on this one issue (while at the same time noting its importance), and help us be unified in what really matters: Christ’s death and resurrection, and the proclamation thereof. [18] Posted by Colorado Benjamin on 12-30-2008 at 12:47 PM • top

“this is an issue on which we cannot reach a firm conclusion from Scripture” I emphatically disagree. Scripture is clearly against WO. No sarcasm. No kidding. [19] Posted by alfonso on 12-30-2008 at 12:54 PM • top

#19 ditto. It is only by the most convoluted reasoning and parsing of Scripture that any case for WO can be made. [20] Posted by evan miller on 12-30-2008 at 01:01 PM • top

I do think that in a sense we need to treat women’s ordination as adiaphora…

Aye, but here’s the rub - The amniotic fluid hasn’t even dried on ACNA, and WOOB can’t even be treated as adiaphora.

Even if you and I really, really, really, want it to be, it isn’t and can’t be.

Moot (who also really, really, really wishes it would go away somehow) [21] Posted by Moot on 12-30-2008 at 01:02 PM • top

(.. as evidenced by the article we’re commenting upon..) [22] Posted by Moot on 12-30-2008 at 01:02 PM • top

My last post was obviously not intending to advance any argument; just an adamant disagreement with today’s churchy “political correctness” which holds that it is OK to agree to disagree on this issue since there is a supposed “lack of clarity” despite weighty biblical substance.

A good start for those actually looking for reasoning is the AMiA study from a few years ago: http://www.theamia.org/assets/AMiA-Womens-Ordination-Study-Aug-03.pdf [23] Posted by alfonso on 12-30-2008 at 01:08 PM • top

Oops. My (#21) & (#22) are responses to Colorado Benjamin (#18 - and cool name, btw!), not Alfonso. [24] Posted by Moot on 12-30-2008 at 01:15 PM • top

fatherlee #8 I agree with you that if you ordain a woman to be a priest then you cannot rightfully with hold her from advancing to the episcopate. Same applies to female deacons....once you have opened the door to women to be ordained into the realm of clergy by the laying on of hands and putting the title Reverend in front of their name how can you halt their desire to go farther up a ladder? This whole concept is why I do not believe in women being ordained into a title of clergy. It is hypocritical to say, “You may become a deacon but may not become a priest or a bishop.” Or, “You may become a deacon or a priest but not a bishop.”

Women should never have been ordained as clergy of any grade! I pray for a church in APCK to come to Fresno so I might be a member....I have personally had enough of these types of issues being the primary focus of the church....it is not Kingdom building nor edifying to the Body of Christ! [25] Posted by One Day Closer on 12-30-2008 at 01:21 PM • top

Even supposing I could find solid support for women’s ordination in Scripture or Tradition (and I don’t find it in either place), my question for those pushing it has been: Why are you pushing an innovation which has the effect of splitting the Church? We were far, far closer to healing the breach with the Romans and the Orthodox before 1976 than we will be again for a long time. And we were far, far more unified as Anglicans before this change was made than we are now. The side effects of the change have been disastrous, even where the individuals involved have been well-intentioned. [26] Posted by Katherine on 12-30-2008 at 01:26 PM • top

Q. “Why are you pushing an innovation...?” A. Peace with the world. [27] Posted by alfonso on 12-30-2008 at 01:36 PM • top

My problem with the whole WO issue is one of consensus, that is agreement between not just fellow Anglicans but all of the Catholic Church. I really wish we could build a better tolerance for all sides of this issue. It is not a moral issue for me, but a faith and practice issue. For most of my life the issue used to be the “icon” teaching, that only a male could represent Jesus because he was a male, blah, blah...And also that Jesus did not pick a female, blah, blah, blah...But really, for me, it is mainly the consensus issue. Don’t misunderstand, though, I believe that a woman ordained is the order she is ordained into, and can function fully (which is a big change for me). I am no longer opposed to the ordination of women, but I think the unilateral, and then piecemeal way it has come about in the AC is unfortunate. My only prayer, for women bishops is that they have a different haberdasher than the PB… [28] Posted by FrVan on 12-30-2008 at 01:36 PM • top

Having now come to an non-WO position, I can certainly see why many on the pro-WO side are pushed even further in that direction by the non-WO rhetoric. Not all of it, but this is a good example:

Really? Are you sure? Do you really presume to say that those who favor WO do so because they “want peace with the world?”

Is it really beyond your comprehension that some may sincerely think (however wrong) that scripture is open to the possibility?

No wonder people get entrenched on one side or the other. On the one side you have SOME who use feminist arguments cloaked in biblical guise and on the other there are SOME who refuse even to try to attribute sincerity or honesty to the other side. [29] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 12-30-2008 at 01:45 PM • top

While I am no biblical scholar, I cannot find any compelling support for WO in Holy Scripture. I rather rest my case on the Gamaliel principle. Admittedly, almost all my first hand experience with women pastors has been in the United Methodist Church, but I have found ordination of women to not be a good thing, based on my observations of the past 30 years. Not that male pastors are faultless, but the problems caused by women pastors are real, and not just caused by misogyny. Just because a woman is not a priest/pastor does not devalue her worth to God or to the Church. [31] Posted by Daniel on 12-30-2008 at 01:57 PM • top

I agree with Matt+. I’ve been on all sides of the issue at one point or another, too. Right now, I’m more or less settled in on anti, and deeply concerned about what I’d do if faced with my vestry calling a woman to serve as rector. Take a job 100 miles away, I suppose.

I do however respect my brothers and sisters of good faith who cite Scripture as being in favor of WO, while at the same time not finding that they’ve made a credible case. Citing Scripture as their authority makes them light-years beyond others who find Scripture opposed to WO, yet forge ahead with it anyhow.

We need to debate this, and it needs to be resolved, but I don’t think that this will be resolved by debate.

Heh. How’s that for a paradox? [32] Posted by Moot on 12-30-2008 at 02:00 PM • top

On the sermon itself, the Rev. Paton is clearly an excellent speaker, and one imagines has had a great impact on the parish. Most of the sermon is quite good. However, it suffers from that same infection that permeates almost all out posts (mine included, perhaps mine especially)- we want to read scripture our own way. She spends a great deal of time talking about the connotations of the word “amaze” without reflecting on the original Greek and the various translations of the passage in Luke that she is quoting. Her substantiation of WO seems based on deriving a “whole Gospel” imperative from a couple of verses.

On the broad question for the ACNA, what it seems to come down to is two things. Do those who favor WO think it more important than remaining in communion (in the sense of “Anglican Communion” as opposed to “communio sacris") at the episcopal level, with Anglo Catholics- or not? And second, and really of greater importance in the long run, is the ACNA going to allow itself to put theology to a vote, ala TEC?

If the answer is “yes” to the second question, then ACNA just becomes TEC with a 20 or 30 year lag. What Rev. Paton is asking for is a vote on women bishops, which would put ACNA on a time frame for progressive agenda just behind the CoE (sorry, I forget the date of the first woman bishop in TEC- ~20 years ago?). From an Anglo Catholic viewpoint, why go through that all over again? Live for another 15 years with an ACNA “code of practice”? I don’t see it happening. One imagines that the provisional constitution and canons of ACNA are the work of long and hard negotiation and compromise among everyone from the REC to the Anglo Catholics, and if having women bishops is a first order issue for you, this might not be your best choice in terms of church affiliation. [33] Posted by tjmcmahon on 12-30-2008 at 02:12 PM • top

I’m going to answer that question with another question: How will we know whether or not God would approve of women’s ordination unless He comes right out and TELLS us, and HOW would He tell us? [34] Posted by Cennydd on 12-30-2008 at 02:14 PM • top

The great thing about the constitutional compromise is that it provides space for a debate to take place without the threat of coercive action. This is precisely why Dr. Paton’s call ought not to be taken up. It is necessary to fight this thing out within a context that provides protection for the “losing” or minority view...whatever that turns out to be. [35] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 12-30-2008 at 02:17 PM • top

Matt+ Yes, really, “peace with the world” is the predominant reason. It doesn’t mean that it is a conscious choice; rather, it is an insidious and subtle temptation which has gained way too much traction among today’s Christians. I’m guilty of falling for other temptations for the same reason. My post was not meant as an “attack” in the least; that it would be quickly perceived as such is an indication of how counter-cultural orthodoxy has become. Likewise, I suppose to today’s ear, it is near impossible to strongly disagree with WO in one sentence without sounding mean-spirited. With that in mind, I offer more than one sentence from an Eastern priest:

“The fact that the question of women’s ordination would be raised at all points to how secularized our theological orientations have become. The proposal for women’s ordination is entirely based on the secular worldview of function versus sign and sacrament (Mystery.) This has is its roots in all of the bad “--isms” from history: Gnosticism, Manicheanism, Rationalism, Nietzcsheism, Communism, radical feminisim and secularism and artificial dualisms (spirit verse matter, body verse soul.) From these heresies stem a certain anti-incarnational disdain for the physical world and consequently a complete ignorance of the relevatory value of gender. Gender is not arbitrary or a “choice” or socially conditioned. It reveals something very fundamental about the created order which gives sense to everything else.

In contrast the Church (and God’s Revelation) operates from a the standpoint of sacrament and symbol: There is a “theology” of the body--a “language” of the body which points to and in fact allows us to participate in the Great Mystery. This Great Mystery which JPII calls the “fundamental element of human existence” is the DNA of the created order. If we get this right we get everything right. If we get this wrong we get everything else wrong. In fact, where there is confusion about geneder there is necessarily theological confusion (and liturgical confusion.) It is the Spousal Mystery--the way in which God entered into intimate relationship with His own creation, especially the human creature, later to become the Church. It is precisely through gender that we actually love as God loves, that we therefore become most like God. Our gender is an icon of the interior life of the Holy Trinity.

A proposal for women’s priestly ordination actually ends up committing the same offense it purports to be against: ingoring the intrinsic dignity and holiness of womanhood which does not have to be proven via function and usefulness. It ends up objectifying womanhood and reducing its value to function and usefulness (which itself ends up being chauvinistic.)

Secondly this question of women’s place in Liturgy shows an igorance of something very fundamental about Eastern Liturgy--the chanting faithful “make” the Liturgy, not the priest. In fact, much of the prayer of the Church (Divine Office) can be done without a priest. This was actually the norm in the early Church. Women’s place among the faithful is therefore, if you want to speak in these terms, even more “important” than the place of the ordained minister which is most often coveted as a place of power and prominence by the women’s priestly ordination perspective. Far from providing some sort of “equality” for women this “power-prominence” view insults everyone including the faithful,womanhood and the Litugy itself by reducing things to a secular based value system.

This Spousal Mystery is most fully played out in Liturgy as Liturgy is the source and summit of everything and therefore of the DNA of the created order. ("Christ emerges from the tomb like a bridegroom from the bridal chamber"--Matins of Pascha.)Yet, ironically this Spousal dimension of Liturgy and its ramifications for the non-issue of women priests is left completely fallow by Liturgists today. I believe that this more than anything else is the basis for the resistance to the mildly inclusive langauge of the revised Divine Liturgy text of the Ruthenian Metropolia of Pittsburgh. This resistance has nothing to do with “conservative versus liberal” or chauvinist-Patriarchal versus “enlightened” and inclusive. Those who are troubled by inclusive language in the Liturgy are concerned that our approach to Liturgy, which should be informed entirely by the mystical, liturgical sacramental worldview (which sees the revelatory value of gender)is being informed to some extent by the secular, non-sacramental worldview. “

Fr. T. Loya http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/249149/2 [36] Posted by alfonso on 12-30-2008 at 02:25 PM • top

I disagree, and have mentioned this disagreement before. Just like all categories of ministry as they stand today - including the office of rector or Director of X Ministries, they are truly artificial to the whole question of Holy Orders, which do not concern the specific office. No one is ordained to be the rector of a parish, no more than anyone is ordained to be a bishop of a specific diocese. No deacon is ordained for a specific ministry - like that of running a soup kitchen. No, they are ordained “to the diaconate.”

This is the problem with that line of thinking. The ordination is conferred irrespective of the potential office.

The evangelical arguments regarding headship are helpful in many ways, but would be more helpful if we Anglicans held that ordination is merely a functional matter. I would order that the Ordinal presupposes the orders of ministry are not offices, but rather exactly what it says - orders. Even then, I would ask in what wise a woman may preside at a eucharist and not be in a headship position.

Nevertheless, one has to wonder how long this sort of troublemaking can be sustained. This lady needs to take the time to realize what a stretch it is for some of us to have WO written into the constitution. [37] Posted by fatherlee on 12-30-2008 at 02:30 PM • top

I avoid these WO threads, but the thought has been in my mind for some time that somehow the questions are not framed properly. Not being trained in theology or church history, I don’t know the evolution of the ordained offices. However, the designations deacon, priest, and bishop provoke, to some extent, a corporate heirarchy imagery. There are three different lists of gifts in the NT: Romans 12, Ephesians 6, and 1 Corinthians 12. I’ve thought that if we had more ordained offices, reflecting a full array of gifts, we could sidestep some of corporate connotations. I know this wouldn’t solve all the issues and would create more issues, but it might shift the paradigm. [38] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 12-30-2008 at 02:34 PM • top

#23 I agree with you, Alfonso. There is also an excellent overview based on the book, “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood -A Response to Evangelical Feminism” by Wayne Grudem & John Piper, where they tackle 50 pertinent questions from a Biblical standpoint concerning WO. http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/cbmw/rbmw/chapter2.html [39] Posted by GSP98 on 12-30-2008 at 02:36 PM • top

if not having women priests and deacons is a first order issue for you, this might not be your best choice in terms of church affiliation.

The ACNA compromise provides shelter for those willing to guard Scripture-based morality as their most important “first order” issue. It is a given, of course, that the scripture-based morality grows from an understanding of the centrality of Biblical authority. [40] Posted by Anglicat on 12-30-2008 at 02:44 PM • top

i) 98% of anti-WO folks agree that the gifts that are required of ordained offices (esp. bishop and priest) are given to women as well as men.

ii) The same 98% assert that spiritual gifts are given so that they would be exercised (and therefore, should)… they just don’t see the need to exercise a set of gifts in an ordained office, or see a proof that a set of gifts means that all prerequisites for ordination have been fulfilled.

iii) Many denominations (REC, PCA, RPCNA, e.g.,) solve the WO problem by commissioning women for specially created offices, rather than ordaining.

Personally, I would love to see the creation of many offices, as you suggest - halfway house resident manager, soup kitchen potato peeler, chair and table stacker-upper and taker-downer, woman in crisis counselor, men’s counselor, youth director, lasagne baker. I’d also be all for renumeration for the critical jobs, regardless of whether or not a ‘sir’ or ‘ma’am’ occupies them. [41] Posted by Moot on 12-30-2008 at 02:51 PM • top

GSP98, from “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood -A Response to Evangelical Feminism” by Wayne Grudem & John Piper, the best “chapter” I thought was a scholarly appendix that confronted the pro-WO innovations to the definition of “headship” (Greek: arche). [42] Posted by alfonso on 12-30-2008 at 02:52 PM • top

Matt+ (29): You make a good point surrounding this issue. If I may expand, one of the problems is that those who both uphold the Bible as inerrant and support women’s ordination because of how they interpret God’s inerrant word often get lumped into (especially among Anglicans) the same category as revisionists who argue for women’s ordination and women bishops using the argument, “People, can’t we just all get into the 21st century and ordain women?” This is not the case. Moot (21): this is why we ought (in my opinion) to treat women’s ordination as adiaphora. Note that I said ought even though I agree with you that it may be very difficult.

Committed Christians in ACNA on both sides of the issue need to recognize that no matter how convinced we are in our own views, it is possible that those on the other side of the issue can hold their views and simultaneously 1) view the Bible as inerrant and 2) not be apostate.

Women’s ordination--or even women bishops--will not lead ACNA down the same path as TEC. The denial of the Bible as God’s inerrant word and the denial of Jesus as the second person of the Trinity and the only Savior and path to salvation will. We will never get it all right as theologians, but if we remain committed to doing our best to formulate a leadership structure--including who can and who cannot be ordained or consecrated a bishop--from God’s holy word (and compel one another to do the same), we will be more or less on the right track, with God’s help.

I for one, am encouraged by this conversation, both in ACNA and in this thread, because it shows that we are both committed to God and one another. [43] Posted by Colorado Benjamin on 12-30-2008 at 02:59 PM • top

Like Matt and Moot, but undoubtedly without their depth of study, I began this journey pro-WO, but as I began to study it in detail, and to read the careful analysis, pro and con, provided here and elsewhere, I moved in the other direction. I am not saying my mind will not be changed again down the road, but I just can’t find an explicit warrant for WO in Holy Scripture, and the arguments for implied endorsement require me to read too much of my own desire into the Bible. I regret that, because I would much prefer, and it would be much easier, to be on the other side. But if I have learned anything over the last ten years it is to always err on the side of adherence to God’s written Word, even when it becomes socially or culturally uncomfortable. This seems to be one of those times.

I support the compromise in the Constitution, and I pray that existing ordained female Priests will be accommodated and their ministry and commitment honored. However, I hope that this is viewed as a transitional period to accommodate the mess inherited from TEC, and not, to use a dreaded TEC word, a “period of reception.” I also hope that an agreed upon deaconess role can be recognized. If the current environment is viewed simply as a transitional mechanism, I suspect that any woman who feels an irresistible call or need to be a Rector, or Bishop, or to lead the fight for others to do so, will likely determine that they need to find a different church. I am not a zealot on this issue, but I have learned too much from my separation from TEC to get back on a slippery slope. [44] Posted by Going Home on 12-30-2008 at 03:04 PM • top

Last year when the CCP had its first meeting and articles were approved, I recall +Duncan then “requesting” that dioceses that had WO be respected. It was a “request”,--- a footnote in the approval of the articles process. At that point I realized that this women’s ordination was at an an end and the current crop of CCP/ACNA female priests would be the last crop. No “safe harbor” was provided for Pittsburgh and its practice. And, as soon as ACNA came into existence, none would be. Did any of you, the one or two who might visit this sight, who believe that WO is scriptually sound, seriously expect a different outcome from ACNA? [45] Posted by EmilyH on 12-30-2008 at 03:12 PM • top

Interesting. “Like Matt and Moot, but undoubtedly without their depth of study, I began this journey pro-WO.” That is my story too. I was rather annoyed, actually, by the strength of the non-WO position and having to change my mind. And in retrospect, I don’t doubt that Matt’s pastoral sensitivities may have picked up some over-ardent attitudes in my posts--not unlike a converted alcoholic, etc.

Peace to all, but not without truth! [46] Posted by alfonso on 12-30-2008 at 03:12 PM • top

What on earth are you talking about? CANA and others practice WO and will continue to. The ACNA can and will do nothing to stop them. [47] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 12-30-2008 at 03:16 PM • top

Matt-- So having come to a non-WO position, how’s that going over in your home? You brought it up, otherwise I wouldn’t ask. [48] Posted by Ralinda on 12-30-2008 at 03:27 PM • top

I do not think WO church dividing. It is certainly not family dividing. [49] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 12-30-2008 at 03:35 PM • top

You clearly haven’t read the same provisional constitution I have. The one I read prohibits interference in the practice of dioceses/networks/clusters in regards to WO. Perhaps you can better explain what you mean. [50] Posted by AndrewA on 12-30-2008 at 03:39 PM • top

Why would you expect anything less than what she calls for? If WO is aceptable why would you think women will be content with just the Diaconate and the Preisthood? It’s going to happen sooner or later and unfortunatly the “leaders” of this movement are all over the board on the issue and afraid for the sake of unity we cannot have one mind. There can only be “Two Integrities” if you agree with WO. If you do not agree with it then there is only one integrity. (hence the meaning of the word integrity) I am completely disapointed in this whole movement. WO and lay presidency approved and ready to go. Oh yes.....you may join a group that doesn’t approve such and live together but I think that’s what we just left isn’t it? All we have done is turn the clock back 15 years and banished a gay Bishop. History will repeat itself and we will be in the same place 15- 20 years from now without the buildings. TAC looks real good right now. [51] Posted by Cradle on 12-30-2008 at 03:43 PM • top

EmilyH has managed to get it 100% wrong. There is a “safe harbor” for WO in the Diocese of Pittsburgh. That is how Bishop Duncan could declare that it would be the special vocation of his diocese to take in female “refugees” who have trouble getting ordained elsewhere. [52] Posted by Nevin on 12-30-2008 at 04:17 PM • top

I have posted this many times but no supporter of WO has taken up the challenge. Just two examples: I believe if you look at the Council of Laodicea, it forbade the appointment of any who woman that corresponded to the role we attribute to a modern deacon. Furthermore, the First Council of Orange in 441, in the 26th Canon forbids the appointment of deaconesses altogether. It is true that the church for a period of time, perhaps in isolated pockets and more so in the eastern churches, did in fact have women practice in the role of deacons (and for the sake of brevity I find that they had a larger role than they are credited with by some uber-orthodox historians). However, in the western churches, the practice ceased in the 10/11th century. So, the challenge is, if you are Anglican and support WO, how to you defend the historical departure of your view given the weight of Scripture and tradition, keeping in mind that both were argued from at the respective councils? [53] Posted by Festivus on 12-30-2008 at 04:38 PM • top

Very astute, Jill [38]. I think this idea of recognizing and utilizing the various GIFTS with which people are blessed, rather than thinking in terms of hierarchy is already being used with great success in parishes--usually rural ones--that have adopted the “Total Ministry” model. In Total Ministry, a TEAM is ordained together, basically dividing all the responsibilities associated with “rector” among the different members of the team. There’s generally an administrator, a teacher, a pastoral care coordinator, a preacher, and a liturgist or sacramentalist. The liturgist/sacramentalist technically gets ordained under our canons and alone has the right to wear a collar, but that is just so as to mesh with our current canons that a PERSON be ordained, not a team. There are a number of good websites devoted to the concept of Total Ministry, a concept already used in several denominations. [54] Posted by Anglicat on 12-30-2008 at 04:46 PM • top

Matt+ Your comments of course mean that you are content to divide orders deacons presbyters and bishops. Since true authority only rests with bishops, barring women from this role denies them teaching authority and the power to ordain. Of course, working hard, and, in most cases as deacons, for free, is probably ok. No Matt+, ACNA removes women from leadership roles. It denies them the opportunity to become bishops. It denies them the fullness of orders. [55] Posted by EmilyH on 12-30-2008 at 05:23 PM • top

Anyone entering orders as a path to “power” probably shouldn’t be ordained regardless of gender. [56] Posted by oscewicee on 12-30-2008 at 05:33 PM • top

I think the compromise was a good one as it reflected the reality on the ground (I would have preferred no new Priests but grandfathering in the existing ones and allowing for a female deconate). I think those who are pro-WO who do not see that they got the better end of the bargain are not being very reasonable and are likely not a good fit with the new Province. Those who are in positions of authority on the Pro-WO end of the spectrum might consider telling the more ardent of the pro-WO that sermons such as these are not helpful. I for one still do not envision large numbers of TEC female priests coming over to the new Province or large numbers of women entering divinity school clamoring to join the new Province. I also doubt that Pittsburg or CANA would elect a female Bishop if one was even eligible - I am assuming that their polity is too conservative. Of course I am frequently wrong. [57] Posted by chips on 12-30-2008 at 05:36 PM • top

EmilyH in her first post laments the end of “women priests”, a fact in complete accordance with her earlier prediction that no accomodation for WO would exist in ACNA. Having been shown that she is completely wrong she now pretends that her first post was actually about “women bishops” and how that squares just perfectly with her earlier predictions… Right now the ACNA holds the same position on women bishops as the COE… [58] Posted by Nevin on 12-30-2008 at 05:37 PM • top

OK, tradition supports a male only priesthood. But what are the scriptural prohibitions against WO. [59] Posted by Old Soldier on 12-30-2008 at 05:55 PM • top

Festivus (53): You have asked for a defense of women’s ordination on the grounds of tradition and Scripture. I think a good place to start for an evangelical argument in favor of women’s ordination can be found here. As for tradition, I heartily agree that in terms of tradition, the scales tip against women’s ordination. Most evangelicals in favor of women’s ordination would also note this, but would argue that on this particular issue, many of the saints who have preceded us have been mistaken.

Note that I also do not believe this issue is central to the gospel. I believe that unity in Christ should take precedence over women’s ordination. However, this should not keep us from presenting our views on the basis of Scripture. I must “reassert” that though we disagree on a particular topic, we are built up when we push one another deeper into God’s word. [60] Posted by Colorado Benjamin on 12-30-2008 at 06:05 PM • top

For Anglo-Catholics (and I hope my Anglo-Catholic friends will correct me if I am misrepresenting their views here) a bishop is not only the overseer of his particular jurisdiction, but he is also a bishop of the Church in general. He is the embodiment of the doctrine and discipline of the Church as a whole. So in addition to the simple invalidity of such an act on a sacramental level, to purport to consecrate a female to the office of bishop would also represent an attempt to alter the essential character of Christ’s body in a way that the ordination of presbyters does not.

This is correct as far as it goes, but there is one additional element of the episcopal role: The bishop is to serve the unity of Christ’s Body. The bishop does this both by remaining in communion with his fellow bishops and by upholding within his own diocese the consensus of the college of bishops regarding doctrine and discipline. If some bishops cannot recognize a woman as a bishop, then she would be serving as a source of division, not a means of unity. Therefore she could not possibly fulfill an essential part of the episcopal role unless/until a consensus arises among the bishops that a woman can be a bishop.

I have to disagree with those who argue that if women can be deacons then they can necessarily be priests and bishops as well. Each office has its own role in the church, and therefore its own qualifications and its own rite of ordination. Specifically, priests and bishops celebrate the Eucharist, while deacons do not. From an Anglo-Catholic (or, for that matter, Orthodox) point of view, therefore, women as deacons might not undermine the sacraments in the way that women as priests or bishops would. [61] Posted by Roland on 12-30-2008 at 06:09 PM • top

Matt-- I admire both the Revs. Kennedy so I’m glad to hear that WO is not a church dividing issue in your mind. And IMHO, regardless of any scriptural warrant for or against women bishops, I think it was wise for ACNA to guard the unity of the church by not permitting women bishops. It would be a good idea for those who are so incensed about this issue to take a deep breath and take a cue from the African primates and ACNA bishops who are so gracious towards each other regarding their differences about WO. [62] Posted by Ralinda on 12-30-2008 at 06:13 PM • top

If I want a total break with the Church Catholic, heresy and outright abysmal theology, I should just stay in in TEC. [63] Posted by JerryKramer on 12-30-2008 at 06:15 PM • top

tjmchahon, The Church of the Ascension is a member of the Diocese of Pittsburgh now realigned with the Southern Cone (ABP Venables) and under the leadership of Bishop Duncan. It is not discerning its future but clearly in line with Bp Duncan. It is a strong evangelical parish with a fairly high chuch liturgy combined with contemporary praise music after Communion. It has been influenced by the three streams movement (catholic in imagination, evangelical in theology and alive in the Holy Spirit-Charismatic) It has been a strong supporter of Bishop Duncan and the realignment cause. Dr. Paton is clearly an evangelical with a deep personal committment to Jesus Christ. She is not the political type and her sermon had none of the feel of someone proclaiming their own cause. She was very gentle yet firm and was teaching what she believed to be the Gospel. She is a retired professor of literature from Geneva College Beaver Falls Pa. which is a strong Reformed Presbyterian institution with firm requirements for orthodoxy from its faculty. I think that it is clear from her sermon that she believes that the ordination of women to the office of Bishop is a Gospel imperative and required by obedience to the Word of God. She did not draw her argument to this logical conclusion but I think it is fair to say that the logical implication of her position is thus: 1. ordination of women to the office of Bishop is necessary for obedience to the whole Gospel. 2. Opponents of WO are contradicting the Word of God and a Gospel imperative. 3. Therefore there can not be full fellowship between supporters and opponents of WO. 4. Pittsburgh should be open to the ordination of a woman to the office of bishop. 5. If ACNA will not ordain women to the office of bishop faithful Christians should begin the next realigment. [64] Posted by reformedanglican on 12-30-2008 at 06:15 PM • top

Emily is consistently a proponent of the theology of TEC. It is no mystery in her rejection of Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy or the new Anglican province being formed. Given her understanding, I am sorry for what certainly appears to be a lessening of the role of women. I think it is a mistaken view but it is not surprising given that the Church has been notoriously weak on related teaching.

Regarding the statement in #43 that ordination of women will not lead the ACNA down the same path as TEC, I wonder what such a statement can possibly be based upon. The abandonment of discipline not only in illegal ordinations but of fellowship with the historic churches has fostered the contempt for the historic faith and we see the ugly fruit of this contempt and dis-ease of the soul in apostolic failures such as Pike and Spong.

#36, Alfonso, I am in essential agreement with this Fr. T with the caveat that I have a pet peeve about confusing sex and gender. The latter is a grammatical construction. [65] Posted by monologistos on 12-30-2008 at 06:29 PM • top

When it was in the Episcopal Church, he said, the diocese took in “theological refugees,” meaning priests who couldn’t get parishes elsewhere because they were theologically conservative. Now it’ll be called to do the same for women who have trouble receiving calls in the conservative Anglican movement, he said. “We know how to take in refugees ... that is our vocation. God has taken us to the next level,” he (Duncan)said.

Nice, ...qualified women ordinands are now “refugees” in Pittsburgh. Only one possible diocese for orthodox women who feel called to priesthood, and of course, only one venue for a parish appointment. +Duncan must be their choice for bishop and Pittsburgh their “choice” to live. . When +Duncan is out of the picture, what do you think will happen? Who do you think there will be to champion their cause? Do you think it will be the good “orthodox” of Pittsburgh, given, if using this blog is an example, 50% or so of them don’t believe that they are even fit matter for ordination. Do you think their male colleagues will gladly slide over to let them in? ...Since these refugees they have no other place to go, proportionately, there is likely to be a large number of them. Do you think there are enough congregations to absorb them in the one single place where their ministry would be, according to +Duncan, welcome? So how many parishes will be rolling out the welcome mat to give cures and support to the “refugees” And CANA’s “local option” for women. again, can the Anglican District of Virginia absorb all the “refugees” Will they be willing to give them their jobs because it is their special mission to support these refugees?

What amazes me is it took so little time. Not years, but weeks before the WO wedge issue hit the fan. If you reason for being together is not because you are called to be and you choose to value that call, you will keep dividing and dividing over interpretation of scripture, theological disputes, epistemological differences etc. [66] Posted by EmilyH on 12-30-2008 at 06:30 PM • top

#59, the prohibitions against WO, scripturally speaking, are found in the following places: 1 Tim. 2:8-3:7 (and 8-13 if you want to deal with the qualifications for the office of deacon[ess] - this becomes more involved due to some linguistic issues, but there are no such considerations in regards to episcopos/presbyteros( Bishop, Elder, Priest, Overseer, Pastor). Titus 1:5-9; and these verses are understood (not unanimously perhaps, but generally) in light of 1 Cor. 14:34-37, and the aforementioned 1 Tim. 2:8-14. [67] Posted by GSP98 on 12-30-2008 at 06:32 PM • top

why would you think women will be content with just the Diaconate and the Preisthood? It’s going to happen sooner or later

Well said Cradle...now where have I seen this movie before??? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC5K_0uRNCQ

Come APCK ...come Intercessor [68] Posted by Intercessor on 12-30-2008 at 06:37 PM • top

WO has been “hitting the fan” ever since it began in TEC. [69] Posted by oscewicee on 12-30-2008 at 06:40 PM • top

#67 GSP98, I’m afraid that EmilyH will disagree with you. I don’t. [70] Posted by Cennydd on 12-30-2008 at 06:42 PM • top

Perhaps it is time to recall that calling to priesthood, etc… is not simply the calling of one’s own desires nor to one particular parish but for the whole church. If the Church does not call women, they are not called. I grant you that this theology of vocation is often absent in Protestantism but while TEC may ignore the wider Christian community in ignoring historical understanding of WO, they apply it often enough when it suits them. What is the Gospel imperative to provide no safe harbor for orthodox, conservative believers who might feel called to priesthood or bishop-hood in TEC? [71] Posted by monologistos on 12-30-2008 at 06:43 PM • top

I do not believe that breaking with tradition because one believes that Scripture compels him to do so “has fostered the contempt for the historic faith.” However, when one breaks with tradition with a disregard to Scripture (à la Pike and Spong), that certainly leads down a path of heresy. My primary purpose on this thread is not defend women’s ordination itself, but to argue that one can reasonable and faithfully defend women’s ordination from Scripture (note that I did not say “can give an airtight case for women’s ordination"), and that much grace and charity can and should be given to one another regarding this issue. Please let me know if you disagree with me on this point. [72] Posted by Colorado Benjamin on 12-30-2008 at 06:53 PM • top

And it has gotten to be a matter of feelings ... and its all a mess. I have concern and feel bad for women and gays and everybody that wants to be a priest or a doctor or an astronaut or married to so-and-so and doesn’t get to. I’m also glad that most people are not given the responsibilities and temptations of being a priest. We have enough failures as it is. [74] Posted by monologistos on 12-30-2008 at 07:02 PM • top

#71 TEC has nothing to do with this. Who cares what TEC does or doesn’t do. It has no authority over the members of ACNA. The issue presented above is an issue brought up by a Pittsburgh Southern Cone Church pastor for its denomination, ACNA. [75] Posted by EmilyH on 12-30-2008 at 07:03 PM • top

CB, I do not know of any recommendations for WO in Scripture although I have previously noted the role of women leaders during the period judges ruled Israel. To begin with, I wonder how so many who refuse to acknowledge much of any theology of ordained orders in the early church can find backing for a theology that calls for ordination of women. Note that I do not include the Gnostic writings as part of Scripture although they are usually hostile to women by today’s standards anyway.

I expect people can be earnest Christians and hold to nearly every notion under the sun ... and I find that they do. I’m not in a position to separate them into good Christians versus some other category. [76] Posted by monologistos on 12-30-2008 at 07:10 PM • top

Emily, if I should happen to believe in a theology of priesthood that requires that priests represent Christ’s maleness as something essential to ordained priesthood, would you attempt to prevent me from even departing from TEC that I might have the freedom to worship as I choose? Duncan has made his own set of problems for himself but let us say I’m not in Duncan’s diocese and the women who worship with me do not want to be priests ... is injustice done unless my understanding and desire for a male priesthood is twarted? I begin to think that is the position of a tyrant and a bully. I would likely be uninterested in repeated hearings of your opinions once we establish that you do not respect mine. [77] Posted by monologistos on 12-30-2008 at 07:17 PM • top

Of course TEC has something to do with it, #75. The realigning churches carry with them problems set in motion by TEC. TEC hurled itself into the ordination of women the same way it hurled itself into the ordination fo gays and gay marriage. This disruption of the church catholic is inherited by the realigning churches. [78] Posted by oscewicee on 12-30-2008 at 07:19 PM • top

In an effort to keep this discussion tidy, I would like to point out that not all Anglo-Catholics are opposed to the ordination of women, just as not all evangelicals are opposed to the ordination of women. While I’m at it, I would also like to mention, although it is really quite off-topic: not every non-celibate homosexual clergyman supports the ordination of women. [79] Posted by Anglicat on 12-30-2008 at 07:27 PM • top

Some may find this rather extensive study on the WO issue (completed by the AMiA a few years back) to be a useful resource. https://share.acrobat.com/adc/document.do?docid=5acda440-0f41-11dd-a144-31000b7514f5 [80] Posted by Father Bob Hackendorf on 12-30-2008 at 07:56 PM • top

As an Anglo-Catholic member of the Already/Not Yet Province, I am profoundly grateful to Dr. Paton for three things:

1. The question needs to be raised now and debated now and settled one way or the other before June, or the Province is doomed. Women who are ordained are either what they claim to be or they are not. If they are, then they are in the whole of the Province or we have no koinonia; if they are not; the same rule applies. (This raises the story of the Roman Catholic cardinal who was at a meeting of ecumenical leaders, and referred to the Episcopal (woman) bishop as “Bishop.” When asked about it later by a scandalized aide, he said, “Well, why not? She’s as much a bishop as the Methodist or Pentecostal ones who were at the table.")

2. It raises the place of the A/NY Province in the Church Anglican and the Church Catholic. Bishop Duncan, in an off the cuff comment at the press conference in Wheaton said, “We held off on the issue of ordaining women to the episcopate since the Anglican Communion has not come to a consensus on this issue.” Clearly Bishop Duncan envisions a future which has women bishops in the ACNA. His brother (at this point) bishops need to know now that this is his vision of the future as they have named him Archbishop “in pectore”. The debate on which is more important: women in orders or unity with the Churches Catholic and Orthodox should be a focus of the College of Bishops of the ACNA, and they should have a clear doctrinal basis for whichever decision they reach, since they will lose members whichever they choose. If they persist in “waffling,” the Province is doomed, as people on both sides will drain away because of the anxiety of an “uncertain trumpet.”

3. However gently (but firmly) and sincerely, she spoke, Dr. Paton evinced one of the classic TEC political moves: go over the heads of the bishops to appeal directly to the people. The bishops will cave eventually. This is classic TEC dysfunction. Either the ACNA learns that there are proper ways to settle the issues before it, and that these include letting bishops be bishops, or it will continue the TEC dysfunction others have spoken of before, and result: it is doomed.

From the first, I have wanted answers to these questions and I am grateful to Dr. Paton for raising them in such a way that they must be dealt with in integrity by the member churches of the A/NY Province: either they come to real unity in consensus or.....

I would love to think WO is a great thing, but alas, it has not turned out so well. I am convinced that TEC pulpits have been exploited by women whose agenda does not really include spreading the Good News. Perhaps the Church has not been as creative as it could be in expanding the roles for women, but then again we are on vestries, are wardens and Deacons. Perhaps the concept of “power” is misunderstood? [82] Posted by GoodMissMurphy on 12-30-2008 at 08:19 PM • top

I have been forwarding a few posts to my son and daughter-in-law on this topic. My very smart daughter-in-law who was thinking about the diaconate had this to say, and yes she knows I am posting her thoughts and response on this thread.

Okay . . . so we really enjoyed hearing this lady speak . . .and I honestly had visions of another priest I know. smile anywho . . . this is my response. I don’t have the ability to post stuff on Stand Firm, and my thoughts are not quite organized and polished, just random thoughts I came across . . . but here’s what I think. smile

First of all . . . for her to reference Genesis Chapter 1 as her “proof” that man and woman are on equal playing ground (assuming she is referencing 1:27), it is impossible to separate this from the more detailed account of HOW man and woman were created accounted in Genesis 2. (Genesis is a full account of what God is briefly describing in 1:27). Then if she wants to rant and rave about how it’s about the Gospel . . . then okay . . . men are the only ones being recognized as being ordained in the New Testament . . . yes women played a role . . . but they can still play a role in the church, just not as ordained priesthood (in our diocese) and bishop (obviously). But the Gospel is filled of references to the relationships between a husband and wife (for one example). In those examples, the woman submits to her husband.

But then again, if we reverse those roles . . . we can see those same roles being reversed within our church and world. When the Gospel speak of the church it is that of a bride to God (more specifically Christ). the church is to submit to God in such a way that we are to honor Christ. We are, never were, and NEVER will be above God. EVER! So why should women attempt to elevate themselves above their husbands? It makes no sense. Now take this example, and apply it to women’s ordination. It is the same thing. Women are elevating themself to a position that men should keep.

In regards to the whole “make peace with the world” comment . . . are we really trying to be of the world???? Absolutely NOT. We are trying to be lights in this dark world. We are trying to live as Christ would have us live. We are trying to live out the Gospel (not sacrificing the values and morals) to the world . . . but if that shakes ground . . . so be it. Christ certainly didn’t bring “peace” to earth . . . he shook things up too! smile Of course the result . . . upon his return in the future will be that of peace and life eternal in his presence!

Great article, Matt—the subject of WO is one area where I think the ACNA/Common Cause has gotten it right. They’ve enshrined in their C&Cs;complete autonomy regarding WO, from diocese [or affinity group] to diocese. Opposed to WO are the three Anglo-Catholic dioceses, the REC, and the AMiA. Just fine with WO are Kenya, Uganda, Southern Cone, CANA, and Pittsburgh. Further affinity groups may form—and each affinity group may decide one way or the other whether they will allow WO. In this way, the ACNA mirrors, for instance, the Global South. Constraint is not an option on either side of the WO issue, and it has been determined that it is not a salvific or primary issue.

You’re dead right on two further things. First, a real discussion and opportunities to convince one another are available on all sides with zero chance of one diocese or a collection of diocese forcing the other side to yield—unlike, you know, TEC. ; > )

Second, as you said “It is not good to suppress all discussion and debate of these things for the sake of unity. Unity suffers as a result of such superficiality.”

Unlike TEC, pretending to agree on something or pretending to be “unified” on a single matter is not necessary. Best for everyone to freely express their views—as this rector of this parish has happily done. Good for her, though I disagree with her position on WO.

The most delightful thing for me—other than my pleasure over the ACNA getting it right and not dividing over this issue—is to watch revisionists like EmilyH spit and hiss over being deprived of her prey.

Instead, she’s reduced to grasping and flailing about to find implosion—like the fact that a blog is discussing the issue or that a priest has objected freely and openly. How Dreadful! Division Already!!!! ; > )

Comment #45 reveals that she hasn’t even bothered to read up on the ACNA’s decisions.

No, women’s ordination is not “at an an end” and no, “the current crop of CCP/ACNA female priests” will not “be the last crop,” as bitterly depressing as it must be to now realize that.

Yes, a complete and total “safe harbor” was provided for Pittsburgh and its practice—as well as Kenya, Southern Cone, CANA, and Uganda, and any other affinity group that wishes to form with WO.

And of course the ACNA does not deprive “women from leadership roles” as rectors or senior priest.

No, there is not “only one possible diocese for orthodox women who feel called to priesthood” and no, there is not “only one venue for a parish appointment”—recognizing of course that dioceses in the ACNA are no longer merely geographic but affinity ordered as well.

In fact, there are probably more dioceses/affinity groups and venues for women to seek the priesthood and parish appointments then there are for men opposed to WO to seek the priesthood and parish appointments.

And no the “WO wedge issue” has not “hit the fan.” This is called excellent debate and exchanging of views—with all parties recognizing that their stances and positions are protected—a refreshing change from TEC. EmilyH must be unfamiliar with debate and exchanging of views in a safe environment. And of course, she was just fine that for years and years, qualified ordinands who opposed women’s ordination were real “refugees” in Fort Worth—that wasn’t a problem at all.

Finally, beyond the recognition that EmilyH gets almost every single “fact” directly wrong, there is also the becoming progression in her string of comments above.

She starts out chortling over various women’s ordination being “at an end”—only to be brought up short by the fact that it isn’t. Then she grasps desperately at the Pittsburgh-is-the-only-refugee-diocese line. That—clearly—fails. EmilyH isn’t even aware of which provinces and groups support WO in the Anglican Communion much less the ACNA. But she continues boldly on, invincible in her ignorance, desperately clinging to the fact that a female rector has freely expressed her views in the pulpit.

We go from “women’s ordination was at an end” to WO is “an issue brought up by a Pittsburgh Southern Cone Church pastor.”

Everybody needs to just mark this series of comments down for future reference—noting just how desperately and frantically the likes of EmilyH so desire failure and division on the part of rivals and competitors—they so salivate over it—that they can’t even read the C&Cs;or various diocese/affiliations positions on it.

EmilyH—Another Episcopal Candidate for the Derek Zoolander School For Kids Who Can’t Read Good. [84] Posted by Sarah Hey on 12-30-2008 at 08:51 PM • top

Colorado Benjamin (#60) - the argument in favor of WO you post is like many I read - it argues from an issue of equality in the sight of God of all believers and is, IMHO, a recent invention, not one of traditional acceptance and deference to church fathers and councils. I have a dear friend, a priest that favors WO, and he argues very persuasively in the same stream of thought, but he cannot explain why the modern interpretation is better than the past, other than it seems right to Him. Once again, the challenge is, if you are Anglican, So, the challenge is, if you are Anglican and support WO, how to you defend the historical departure of your view given the weight of Scripture and tradition, keeping in mind that both were argued from at the respective councils? I would assume you believe in Hooker’s perspective that God’s supernatural law, Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience - in that order, frame the weight of correct perspective. [85] Posted by Festivus on 12-30-2008 at 09:04 PM • top

so, girls can be priests and bishops or not? [86] Posted by Mad Potter on 12-30-2008 at 09:05 PM • top

A point about CANA...TWO of the six some-odd bishops of CANA made a very public alliance with Forward in Faith...one of them, my overseeing bishop. I also have it on good authority that only one of the CANA bishops is WAY enthusiastic about WO...a few can take it or leave it. In Nigeria I am told the Mother’s Union is the group MOST opposed to WO. Since women were allowed into the diaconate, FEW women, relatively speaking, have taken The Church of Nigeria up on it. The CANA church I am moving to is opposed to WO...three other ones I looked at this year are also opposed WO. CANA isn’t exactly “just fine” with WO. There are Americans that are ok with it being “grandfathered in”...but even then there is division of opinion. [87] Posted by TXThurifer on 12-30-2008 at 09:05 PM • top

“I can tell you, that regardless of personal views and positions, there is wide, broad, and deep consensus on the part of ACNA leaders that the consent to the election of female bishops would doom the province.”

Just remember, that as long as WO continues as is, there will be NO reunion with the other major branches of the One, Holy , Catholic, and Apostolic Church...that is the biggest immediate roadblock...full-stop… [89] Posted by TXThurifer on 12-30-2008 at 09:14 PM • top

TXTurifer, I admire your intent, but ACNA would have to drop a great many more things before there was ever a hope of full unity with the Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox on “This Side of the River Jordan”. Starting with the 39 Articles, the 1662 BCP, the Jerusalem Declaration, Filoque, most of Augustine, all of Calvin and Cramner… [90] Posted by AndrewA on 12-30-2008 at 09:18 PM • top

#86 FWIW, didn’t the 1978 Lambeth Conference recommend that it be left to individual Provinces to decide about such matters? The theological implications are that the presbyteral and episcopal ministry of women is not a gospel essential but is an adiaphoron. One can be an Anglican and be in favor (some Provinces are - England seemingly is, Wales isn’t). One can be an Anglican and be against (some Provinces are).

Both in the USA and the COE this understanding was extended within Provinces at the point that women were ordained presbyters.

On this, as I understand it, the ACNA churches stand in precisely the same place as the wider Communion. [91] Posted by driver8 on 12-30-2008 at 09:19 PM • top

Sarah, 84, I’m all for vigorous dissection of someone else’s argument. And there seems to be grounds to do that with EmilyH’s posts here. But your post isn’t just responding to the argument—it’s flagrantly insulting and attacks the person, not just the posts. What’s the point of that?

GSP98, 67, I appreciate the links to the Bible passages. This is an issue where I have some thoughts and views but haven’t spent a great deal of time studying it. I’d like to improve my knowledge base on the subject. Having read the passages, I don’t see where Titus really has much value in the WO debate. If I’m missing something there, someone please clue me in. It’s clear that 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14, on the other hand, do support an anti-WO stance. But they also raise questions. So, is there someone out there who would be willing to answer these (or point me toward a resource that does):

1) 1 Tim 2:11 - Is this only religious instruction? Does it bar women from asking questions and engaging a subject?

2) 1 Tim 2:12 - Again, is this only in the church? Does it mean that we should not have women Sunday School teachers or Bible study leaders, and no women heads of committees or parish administrators? Also, when Paul says what he allows, are we to take that as his view or as Biblical truth (God’s view on the matter)?

3) 1 Tim 2:13-15 - I’m struggling with how to view these passages. I don’t want to label them chauvinistic or misogynistic, but they certainly lend themselves to that kind of reading. Is this something that the AMiA report or another anti-WO resource will address?

4) 1 Cor 14:34-35 - Seems even more extreme than 1 Tim 2:12 and raises the same difficulty for me as 1 Tim 2:13-15. In fact, it seems like an approach to warm an Islamist’s heart. [92] Posted by DavidH on 12-30-2008 at 09:27 PM • top

It is sooo tempting to comment in extenso here, but I’ll pass. However, I did want to note three things:

1 - I am impressed with the general intelligence and thoughtfulness of the comments, which do not often appear in discussions of this subject.

2 - Matt+ stated (I think it was in comment 7) that, if Ms. Paton thinks it a “gospel imperative,” she should go ahead and preach on it. It was precisely this sort of thinking--everyone deciding for themselves just what a “gospel imperative” is, and assuming their right to preach it--that got us into so much trouble in the first place. If Ms. Paton’s theology is faulty (and I think it is), then her subjective estimation of what constitutes a “gospel imperative” (MDGs, anyone?) is no reason to escape discipline concerning what is and is not appropriate to preach. That’s one of the reasons bishops exist.

3 - There persists in many comments here (as usually does in such discussions) some confusion about what “salvific” means in this context. The problem with the “ordination” of women is not that, if you believe it is right, your personal soul is imperiled. If absolute theological correctness is the requirement for anyone’s salvation, including mine, then we’re all in a lot of trouble. Rather, it is because WO profoundly affects what the Church is, and not just what it says, that it is such a threat.

In other words, we do not require simply right belief for salvation. After all, “even the demons believe, and shudder” (James 2:19). Rather, what we require is communion with God (John 17:22-23, 2 Peter 1:3-5), and if women cannot be priests, then their “ordination” threatens that communion.

If there is any hope for ACNA, that hope lies in what the “compromise” really represents: the first step back from what appeared to be a never-ending progress of this godless innovation. If ACNA, over the course of a generation, in its councils and it prayers, continues to step back, it may thrive. If it does not, it will not prosper. [93] Posted by Id rather not say on 12-30-2008 at 09:56 PM • top

Enough, we all have thought about this- well some have thoght and some have felt-LET IT BE! [94] Posted by hookemhooker on 12-30-2008 at 09:57 PM • top

Occasionally I point out EmilyH’s errors in analysis. This time, I went much much farther in my opinions about her comments and her intentions. But then . . . so did she. And I think we all see that. [95] Posted by Sarah Hey on 12-30-2008 at 10:07 PM • top

RE: “If Ms. Paton’s theology is faulty (and I think it is), then her subjective estimation of what constitutes a “gospel imperative” (MDGs, anyone?) is no reason to escape discipline concerning what is and is not appropriate to preach.”

RE: “Rather, what we require is communion with God (John 17:22-23, 2 Peter 1:3-5), and if women cannot be priests, then their “ordination” threatens that communion.”

According to Anglo-Catholics in the ACNA, maybe. But not enough for them not to pursue the development of and membership in the ACNA. [96] Posted by Sarah Hey on 12-30-2008 at 10:10 PM • top

I am certain there are more than one or two of us here who have no problem with recognizing women as priests. I think the compromise is a good one. It places us squarely in the mainstream of Anglicanism and recognizes the validity of both theological positions just as the Lambeth Conference did.

Regarding CANA, there are at least two of the six bishops who favor WO, two who do not, and I have never heard the other two say one way or the other. Again, this is much like a microcosm of the Anglican world. The important thing is that we respect one another in our differences on this.

This is why allowing for women priests but not bishops makes sense. A priest does not ordain others which makes the validity of the ordination questionable for those who do not accept WO. On the other hand, churches who recognize women in priestly orders are free to call them to those parishes that can use their gifts. Nothing will be forced on anyone. I hope someday the whole Communion will come to a true consensus on this but until then we will bear one another’s burdens with love.

Regarding the Scriptural arguments, the real question deals with the interpretation of these passages. Given that they are Epistles, are they contextual or universal in their proscription? Does the use of the word “anthropos” mean “male” or a generic “man”. Does “husband of one wife” require that a bishop be married? There are real questions of interpretation here.

When one speaks of the Tradition of the Church in Anglican thought we usually are referring, as Archbishop Temple did. to the first four Ecumenical Councils of the Church. They said nothing about this issue.

There are good theological arguments on both sides. Perhaps bearing one another’s burdens is an improvement over limitless schism. I left one denomination because of the desire of a vocal group attempting to force their views upon the whole church. I would hope we could avoid that mistake this time around.

Thanks for the reply, DavidH; I’ll answer your thoughts and queries the best that I can.

You wrote: “I don’t see where Titus really has much value in the WO debate.” In fact, the Titus passages confirm the gender requirements for overseer (sysnonomous with elder here) as had already been laid down in 1Timothy ch 3. Further, both passages are firm in their insistence that the overseer had a place of authority over the congregation - something forbidden to women in 1 Corinthians 14 and 1Timothy ch. 2. In other words, you cant invest someone with authority over the flock while denying them the authority at the same time -hence, the impossibilty of a woman being a priest or bishop. Woman may certainly share their insights and teach the word and council and serve in a variety of capacities, just not as a priest or bishop. She may not take for herself, or be appointed to, a position of authority over the congregation.

Please click on the link that I provided in my post #39, as it deals rather thoroughly with the questions that you raise; it would be worth the half-hour or so it takes to read it. [98] Posted by GSP98 on 12-30-2008 at 10:24 PM • top

“When one speaks of the Tradition of the Church in Anglican thought we usually are referring, as Archbishop Temple did. to the first four Ecumenical Councils of the Church. They said nothing about this issue.”

I can’t say for certain about Temple, but Tradtion in this case refers (as it did for Jewel, Andrewes, et al.) to the doctrine and practice of the church that produced those councils, and not simply to their decrees. [99] Posted by Id rather not say on 12-30-2008 at 10:26 PM • top

I’m at a loss. Was I dreaming all that post GC76 stuff? You know, Affirmation of St. Louis and all that. Seemed pretty ‘church dividing’ at the time. Really miss some of those folks still.

As for headship, what about presiding at the Eucharist? To me, that’s enough headship to make one have to decide if they believe WO is permissible.

Honestly curious what you meant, [100] Posted by miserable sinner on 12-30-2008 at 10:31 PM • top

While I doubt that Andrewes or Jewel ever gave any thought whatsoever to WO when speaking of Tradition, they certainly would have included the doctrine you mentioned. Practice is another matter, though. The practice of the Fathers would have included many culturally conditioned practices. Jewel and Andrewes were solid reformers who believed the Church needed to be relevant to effectively proclaim the Gospel. [101] Posted by Ron Baird+ on 12-30-2008 at 10:39 PM • top

EmilyH’s familial concern is very touching. Just think, should her predictions come true, the poor afflicted expatrioted Episcopalians hob-knobbing with the vile anti-WO Episcopalians will “come home,” crawling as it were over broken glass, to be met with her haughty stares and “I told ya so’s”.

She’s wrong of course… but it’s very sweet. [102] Posted by Moot on 12-30-2008 at 11:34 PM • top

It seems that The Episcopal Church has accepted Women’s Ordination to mean Lesbian Ordination also, for example: Lesbians Susan Russell and Elizabeth Kaeton are ordained Episcopal Priests and they seem to be very influential politically, in fact there are times when I, as a woman, am offended when they assume that they speak for all women, especially when it comes to church support of the RCRC. It seems to me that the opposition to Women’s Ordination may be a concern that it would open the door to Lesbian Ordination and its consequences. [103] Posted by Betty See on 12-30-2008 at 11:46 PM • top

“Culturally conditioned”? Oh dear. I should have thought we’d seen where that sort of argument leads.

From the Challenge Sermon 1559: And 1 said perhaps boldly, as it might then seem so it seem to some; but as I myself, and the learned of our adversaries themselves, do well know, sincerely and truly, that none of all of them that this day stand against us, are able, or ever shall be able, to prove against us any of all these points, either by the Scriptures, or by the example of the primitive Church, or by the old Doctors, or by the ancient General Councils.

From the Apology for the Church of England: Further, if we do show it plain that God’s Holy Gospel, the ancient bishops, and the primitive church do make on our side, and that we have not without just cause left these men, and rather have returned to the apostles and the old catholic fathers; and if we shall be found to the same not colorably or craftily but in good faith before God, truly, honestly, clearly, and plainly; and if they themselves which fly our doctrine and would be called catholics shall manifestly see how all these titles of antiquity, whereof they boast so much, are quite shaken out of their hands, and that there is more pith in this our cause that they thought for; we then hope and trust that none of them shall be so negligent and careless of his own salvation but he will at length study and bethink himself to whether part he were best to join him.

Jewel got plenty wrong, but on that one he hit the mark. And I don’t think you’ll get much support from Andrewes, either. [104] Posted by Id rather not say on 12-30-2008 at 11:53 PM • top

Perhaps I should clarify, by “culturally conditioned” I mean that Paul is writing to address a particular situation that existed in the Church he wrote to. This would not necessarily make the application of what he says universal.

Regarding Jewel, I would agree with what he says in the quote you cite but I do not see how that would invalidate my point listed in #101 [105] Posted by Ron Baird+ on 12-31-2008 at 12:12 AM • top

Oscewicee # 56: You have identified the problem, and I pray that He will lead us instead to the “paths of righteousness for His name’s sake”. [106] Posted by Betty See on 12-31-2008 at 12:29 AM • top

surely you are not entirely serious but perhaps partly so. It is, I would think, fairly obvious that when I wrote that I do not think WO is “church dividing” , I was not referring to the historical effects WO has had, but to the question of its place among primary or secondary matters. I believe it is secondary.

because as I have argued consistently, I think there is a level of biblical ambiguity with regard to the role of women in the church that makes a faithful argument for WO within the context of male headship possible.

I no longer agree with these arguments but I think they can be legitimately made.

As for presiding at the Eucharist...when an assistant male presbyter presides, he is not thereby made the “head” of the congregation. He remains subject to the authority placed over him and only presides by permission of the head.

I understand what you mean, I simply do not share your belief that the sacramental act of presiding at the Eucharist necessarily sets someone in the role of head of the body. [107] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 12-31-2008 at 04:31 AM • top

GSP98, thanks. The book of which that chapter is a part does look promising. I’ll check it out. [108] Posted by DavidH on 12-31-2008 at 04:52 AM • top

I must defend Sarah here. I don’t see personal attacks at all; I think she is astute and has drilled to the center of an unpleasant and festering issue, one that is more and more evident. Our worthy opponents are in a state of enraged impotence and the only hope they have, as they watch their beloved church wither, is that this issue will doom the new province. Mrs. Kaeton’s blog, which I read this evening, is a case in point. She fairly splutters with rage and the only weapons she has are her tonque and the dreaded “homophobia” and “bigot” labels. Now and then she posts something along the lines of “Schism over, I’m done, not talking about it anymore” and then two days later she has a five screen melt-down about it all over again.

My next point is veering off topic but I want to include it because I believe it is significant. I have belonged, in my liftime to five EC’s. One for many years as a child and young adult and the others in the various areas we have lived. Every single one of them was or still is drowning in a very toxic soup of factions, clicques, movements to remove the priest, vestry coups, Mary/Martha vicious dust-ups, choir wars, and a general “which side are you on” atmosphere. (And I don’t mean regarding WO or even inclusion… just general human nastiness and the tendancy to take sides. In other words, the soft underbelly of Christ’s church.)

In my “new” (going on four years) Anglican parish I have seen absolutely none of that, heard not one whisper of criticism about anyone or anything (including TEC) and sense only a joyful unity. I believe we are so joyful at having made our escape that the other stuff is just irrelevant. What a blessed vacation from all that nonsense!

Ron Baird+ (#97) - you might want to read The 1st Council Of Nicaea (325) and article 19. [110] Posted by Festivus on 12-31-2008 at 07:43 AM • top

#82 Good Miss Murphy I think you have hit the nail on the head. It is the equation of priesthood with power that is the problem. If we think instead of priesthood as one of the gifts or charisms as described by St. Paul, then it is only one among many and all are equally essential to the Body. That this particular charism might be restricted to males does not demean the charisms that are open to all. If we truly acknowledge Christ as the head of the Body, there can be no “right” to a particular gift. They are all given by Him to whom He wills. Our task is to discern them correctly and then humbly accept them and attempt to carry them out, relying at all times on His grace and mercy.

“As for presiding at the Eucharist...when an assistant male presbyter presides, he is not thereby made the “head” of the congregation. He remains subject to the authority placed over him and only presides by permission of the head.

I understand what you mean, I simply do not share your belief that the sacramental act of presiding at the Eucharist necessarily sets someone in the role of head of the body.”

But Matt+, anyone who presides at the eucharist a) acts as an extension of the bishop, who is indisputably the head of the congregation and who cannot be everywhere at once on a Sunday, and b) represents Christ, who is indisputably the head of the body and who IS everywhere at once on a Sunday--in the person of the priest. The priest’s authority to perform a eucharistic act is THEIR authority--which is to say, ultimately, Christ’s authority. That’s why they call it apostolic. [112] Posted by Id rather not say on 12-31-2008 at 08:22 AM • top

Um....ACNA accepts the teachings of Saint Augustine of Hippo? The one who is a doctor of the Catholic Church? [113] Posted by Charles on 12-31-2008 at 08:23 AM • top

“Starting with the 39 Articles, the 1662 BCP, the Jerusalem Declaration, Filoque, most of Augustine, all of Calvin and Cramner… “

Well, maybe a good bit of Calvin (and no loss there), but otherwise, you might be surprised at how much of the rest could be accommodated. [114] Posted by Id rather not say on 12-31-2008 at 08:38 AM • top

Hi IRNS, you and I do not share the same ecclesiological or sacramental commitments. [115] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 12-31-2008 at 08:39 AM • top

Matt+ (107) - a question and food for thought, from from Charles Bigg’s The Origins of Christianity ( Clarendon Press, 1909, pp.63-71 in case you want to reference it).

Clement uses the name bishop as equivalent to priest, and this is no doubt his regular use. He recognizes, that is to say, an Apostolical Succession of priests and deacons, but not of bishops, and in this is in complete agreement with Jerome. There is, however, another passage:‘They therefore that make their offerings at the appointed season are acceptable and blessed; for while they follow the institutions of the Master they cannot go wrong. For unto the high priest his proper services have been assigned and to the priests their proper office is appointed, and unto the Levites their proper ministration is laid. The layman is bound by the layman’s ordinances. Let each of you, brethren, in his own order give thanks unto God, maintaining a good conscience, and not transgressing the appointed rule of His service, but acting with all seemliness.’

Clement sees in the Christian hierarchy an embodiment of the eternal and all-pervading will of God, which is Law and Order, and governs not the Church only, but the earth, the heavens, and the sea. The grand passage in which he develops this thought may have suggested to Richard Hooker the idea which that great divine so powerfully expounded in the first book of his, Ecclesiastical Polity. It is highly noticeable also that Clement is the first Christian writer to draw an analogy between the Christian priest and deacon and the Jewish cohen and Levite. He labours to show that there is a direct line of succession between the hierarchy of the Old and that of’ the New Testament.

If this is accurate, then how can a female priest serve in the way of a male priest, and how can she receive the same orders of office? If anything, charity would seem to indicate that she be considered a deacon of sorts, and of no way a priest in the manner the Episcopal Church has set forth. [116] Posted by Festivus on 12-31-2008 at 08:40 AM • top

Matt+ - my post at #116 also goes to the question that has been raised about what happens at the Eucharist. (And it’s not a bash to anyone, just honest exchange.) [117] Posted by Festivus on 12-31-2008 at 08:44 AM • top

“Perhaps I should clarify, by “culturally conditioned” I mean that Paul is writing to address a particular situation that existed in the Church he wrote to. This would not necessarily make the application of what he says universal.”

And just what authority do we bring to the text in order to determine what is and is not universal (i.e., catholic)?

Tradition, perhaps? [118] Posted by Id rather not say on 12-31-2008 at 08:45 AM • top

You raise another point I have been thinking about: our failure to distinguish power from authority. The word authority comes from the Latin auctor for creator and suggests that those with authority are repositories of the Truth. “With authority” is the phrased used in the RSV to describe the amazing way Jesus explained the scriptures in the synagogue. The way of ensuring that the Truth was preserved intact and passed on in the ancient church was Apostolic succession, which the Anglican branch of the church nominally accepts. Certainly, having authority implies power over those who acknowledge the authority, but it is not the personal power of the priest, it is the power of the God the Father who has spoken the Word. In terms of the secular (meaning non-sacred) acts of the church in the world, clearly one can have power without having authority. But that power ought always to be subject to the Word.

“Hi IRNS, you and I do not share the same ecclesiological or sacramental commitments.”

Hi Matt+, and thereby hangs another argument, and possibly the future of ACNA. [120] Posted by Id rather not say on 12-31-2008 at 08:56 AM • top

For the folks who assert that WO is completely contrary to scripture, how do you account for this? From the TNIV Romans 16;1-3:

Συνίστημι δὲ ὑμῖν Φοίβην τὴν ἀδελφὴν ἡμῶν, οὖσαν διάκονον τῆς ἐκκλησίας τῆς ἐν Κενχρεαῖς,

διάκονον = diakonon = deacon (of) [121] Posted by Mrs. Falstaff on 12-31-2008 at 09:10 AM • top

To all, for FYI, 1. The Rev Dr Ann Paton (note this correct spelling, pronounced “pay-tun"). She is retired faculty from Geneva College in Beaver Falls, PA. 2. (I don’t think she’d mind you all knowing that) she is an octoganarian! A firecracker nevertheless. 3. One of the best preachers in the Diocese, hands down. 4. She’s at Ascension, Oakland (Pittsburgh’s university district). Ascension is “rock-solid” evangelical, supportive of re-alignment and Bp Duncan. One of our cardinal parishes. The Rector, the Rev Jonathan Millard, was recently elected to the Standing Committee, and he served as Spokesman for the Coalition for Re-alignment. 5. Ascension has a history of supporting and employing women in Holy Orders. [122] Posted by episcopaul on 12-31-2008 at 09:11 AM • top

I don’t know how that link made it into my comment - it links to the NIV, which translates diakanon as servant - which is accurate, of course, but it also means deacon. Odd - I try to insert links and they don’t work, and then I inadvertently add one. Anybody remember the comic strip Shoe, with the computer repairman who was dressed as a wizard???? [123] Posted by Mrs. Falstaff on 12-31-2008 at 09:15 AM • top

Maybe so, maybe not. We’ll see [124] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 12-31-2008 at 09:21 AM • top

There was no feminine form for diakonos in classical Greek, hence the insistence (by some) of translating this as “deacon” as opposed to “deaconess.” Similarly nauta ("sailor") in Latin is feminine in form, but masculine in meaning. And the earliest mention (of which I a aware) of this matter is Pliny’s famous letter (10.96) which mentions (c. 116 AD) “ministrae” (deaconesses). Eventually (by the fourth c. AD if memory serves), the form of diakonissa was invented for this purpose, but none such existed in St. Paul’s day.

There is an extensive literature on Phoebe, but briefly, the best work demonstrates that a distinction must be made between a “deaconess” and a “female deacon.” The former certainly existed in the early church, but was never, insofar as we have evidence, thought to be the equivalent of the latter. See A. G. Martimort, Deaconesses: An Historical Study. (A handy summary of Martimort was made by an AMIA priest a while ago, but I don’t have the link. Google a bit and you’ll either find it or other discussions of it. [125] Posted by Id rather not say on 12-31-2008 at 09:50 AM • top

To follow up: one such summary (by a couple of Presbyterians, no less), can be found here:

http://www.baylyblog.com/2008/07/martomort-on-wo.html [126] Posted by Id rather not say on 12-31-2008 at 09:57 AM • top

This has been a fascinating thread, and I’d like to add one more thought to the mix before I leave it for good.

Regarding the possibility of deaconesses - even if it can be established that such may be allowed for, a deacon is a servant. Overseer, Bishop and Elder are positions of authority over the church. I am not Anglican, and there are certainly those who are better qualified than I to elucidate the office of deacon vis a vis the higher ecclesiastical offices in the AC; that’s not my intent here. My point rather is that a servant is not a ruler, and women, while full and equal members in Christs mystical body, simply are not permitted to hold a position of authority over men in the church, according to Paul, thus precluding them from such offices. [127] Posted by GSP98 on 12-31-2008 at 10:06 AM • top

Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.

FReepmail Huber or sionnsar if you want on or off this low-volume ping list.
This list is pinged by Huber and sionnsar.

Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com
Humor: The Anglican Blue

Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15

Extremely long article. What is ANCA?
American N C A?

Our society uses so many acronyms, that every article should identify the acronym with it’s full name at the beginning of the story.

Yikes! This is not going to end well.

I'm with the poster somewhere in the middle of that lengthy discussion, who pointed to the "Gamaliel principle".

I was in the somewhat unique position of being a member for 28 years of an ECUSA "training parish" for a large and populous (at least it was then) diocese. Every priest ordained in the diocese spent a period of time in my former parish as a sort of "shakedown cruise" before going to a first assignment.

With ONE exception in 28 years, none of the women ordained in that diocese (and there were a lot of them) were fit to serve as priests. Some were frankly seeking political power, some pushing a radical lesbian agenda (at least that one got fired but she probably wouldn't be these days), some were seeking an answer to their own neuroses. Only one seemed to have sought ordination because she wanted to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ and tend his sheep. But even she supported the homosexual consecration/ gay marriage thing, on the grounds of "social justice".

This controversy was brought over from ECUSA, and not too many of the wrangling disputants seem to realize that that was the camel's nose under the tent in the first place.

Was that a full college course I just scanned over? Wow.

Sorry but I didn’t read the whole thing but here are some scriptures regarding this and should answer any questions:
1 Corinthians 14:34-35 & 1 Timothy 2:11-15

Now don’t shoot the messenger here but, if we’re allowed to pick and choose which scriptures are relevant to us today aren’t we opening ourselves up to more criticism and even more trouble?

You make the (perhaps understandable) mistake of attributing unfitness, agenda-pushing, and neurosis-indulgence only to women. I promise, having recently "done time" in an Episcopal seminary, it is not a problem that breaks down along gender lines. It's not a male or female thing.

Well, certainly there are PLENTY of male ordinands who fall into those categories. And they're particularly plentiful in the Episcopal Church, given what they've been teaching and practicing for the last 45-50 years they have tended to attract that type.

But what was odd to me is that in 28 years' worth of new priests, I only saw ONE woman who was up to the job. I saw plenty of men who could handle the work, even if I disagreed with their politics or world view. The women couldn't do what a priest is required to do.

The universal marker that I saw, was that none of them could make a decision, even on the simplest matters like which carpet to buy for the offices, let alone serious matters like theological or parish issues. They discussed and focus grouped and committee'd everything simply to death, and then changed their minds. Usually the rector had to step in and say "Stop!" Even the wimpiest, most neurotic, politically agendized men could usually bring themselves to decide stuff.

No, neither of those.

I can only speak to the seminary that I went to, and those with whom I have associated, but extrapolating from that, seminaries are not intended to produce priests, but social workers and kindergarten teachers, whether male or female. That is of course, symptomatic of our society at large. I don’t know if you’ve spent any time in a university setting lately, but it’s a trend....

Trinity School for Ministry and Nashotah House are the only orthodox Episcopal seminaries remaining. The others are as you describe.

Most bishops in the U.S. will no longer ordain graduates of TSM or Nashotah. They really don't WANT orthodox Christians, as you observed.

Thankfully I am past the age of having to fool with liberal professors (I taught at my law school as an adjunct, but law schools don't have as many liberals in them). My daughter is attending a small Presbyterian college where some of the professors are quite liberal, but everyone is allowed to have their say, and indeed the liberal profs go out of their way to bring my daughter's opinions into the discussion, and she certainly hasn't been downgraded by anyone for expressing same.

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.