This will be a short charge – cannot review the year that has gone!
Appointments and announcements.
When you retire from ACoC HoB you receive a glass dish with diocesan coats of arms. Managed to break it before it got home. Perhaps a god-incidence….. Thought about it when I reliquished my orders. Many fond memories with Canadian HoB. Another god-incidence with Bp Malcolm Harding, do not have time to outline story.
Appointment as Archdeacon: Rev Canon Charlie Masters
Appointment as Prolocutor: Rev George Sinclair
Appointment as Chancellor: Cheryl Chang
Appointment as Admin Assistant: Ron Bales (sp?)
Welcome first parish into churches of the Network: Church of the Resurrection, Hope, BC.
Welcome second parish into churches of the Network: St Johns, Richmond, BC.
First license granted: Rev Dr Archie Pell
Second license granted : Rev Sean Love
Sun 2nd Dec there will be ordinations to the diaconate.
Clarification on WO: To be clear, women have same status as men in the churches of the Network. We will respect differences of opinion.
We have had a great time here with like-minded people. Know as we go back home it may be difficult. Raise a shield of a prayer life.
Issue you a warning: We have attained great degrees of success and recognition in the last while. We must be careful with success – satan will try and thwart us. You can be sure that things will happen to try and offset you (ed – full armour of God folks).
2 Kings 6
15 When the servant of the man of God got up and went out early the next morning, an army with horses and chariots had surrounded the city. “Oh, my lord, what shall we do?” the servant asked.
16 “Don’t be afraid,” the prophet answered. “Those who are with us are more than those who are with them.”
17 And Elisha prayed, “O LORD, open his eyes so he may see.” Then the LORD opened the servant’s eyes, and he looked and saw the hills full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha.
Those in leadership positions must be particularly wary. Friends may snub you, the hardest wounds.
Lastly, it is significant that we are starting as Advent begins. Awake, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Jerimiah 8 v11:
They dress the wound of my people
as though it were not serious.
“Peace, peace,” they say,
when there is no peace.
Repent – all of us – we too are responsible for much of what has happened.
Let us not spend too much time bemoaning the past, but put our hands to the plough and look forward. When we repent and move out to do what we are called to do, suffer for the gospel, then:
Jeremiah 15
19 Therefore this is what the LORD says:
“If you repent, I will restore you
that you may serve me;
if you utter worthy, not worthless, words,
you will be my spokesman.
Let this people turn to you,
but you must not turn to them.
20 I will make you a wall to this people,
a fortified wall of bronze;
they will fight against you
but will not overcome you,
for I am with you
to rescue and save you,”
declares the LORD.
I am not aware that Rev. Short spoke against the ordination of women at this conference. In fact, I understood that the ordination of women was publicly upheld by this conference, although I may be wrong. However, from material posted in the online sermons at Rev. Short’s church, and reported in this blog,
http://www.qaya.org/blog/?p=319#more-319
rev, Short is reported as saying,
“Headship must be demonstrated in the local congregation, 1 Corinthians 11:3 … Within the local congregation a woman should not take preaching headship.”
I don’t think it is too difficult to extrapolate from this that he will not support the ordination of women. My concern is not so much whether the Network supports women’s ordination or not, there seem to be arguments against it, my concern is whether people at the conference were aware of the resistance to women ‘s ordination among members of the exec.
I just want to know how clear the position of the Network is to others, how transparent this is, and if the Network will defend women’s ordination in the long run.
It will be interesting to see how others view the remark “we will ordain women to the diaconate and presbyterate” taken directly from the article entitled “What type of Church will we be” from this conference. Do we interpret this as the ANiC halting only at consecrations for women? And how does one fit this into the overall scheme of women’s ordination and the logic behind it?
Seems to be that the ANiC have not really considered all the huge elements that come into play from any branch/break away from the ACC..
As to warnings, the BCP lays down in the Consecration of Bishops the charge to banish and drive away all erroneous/strange doctrine contrary to God’s Word (page 663) and again Jesus’ own words Matthew 18:6…so will they lead congregations into the Way of Righteousness or will they continue to maintain strange doctrines for the sake of a feministic movement?
It will be interesting indeed to see how the ANiC will either take action now before the ink dries or sit idly by while the devil dances with glee….
There really is no point in creating another “church” if it is simply going to be as selective about Scripture as the one it is leaving.
There are no scriptural grounds for remarriage after divorce; for the ordination of women; or for the Inghamite heresy.
A Network which is based only on exclusion of the third is doomed from the beginning. It’s time to repent of the other two as well, before attempting to go forward with something claimed to be an “orthodox” body.
“Anglican Essentials Canada offers support to Canadian Anglicans who wish to remain true to biblically-faithful, historically-authentic Anglicanism and who are concerned about the direction taken by their current church leadership.”
Is this really true? I’m starting to think that the Burlington Conference was for naught since biblically-faithful, historically-authentic Anglicanism speaks nothing of the remarriage of divorced persons or the ordination of women.
Accepting one or both means that the Network speaks with a forked-tongue!
I wonder how many people are reading this? I’d say a lot if the number of comments is any indicator. And why are they reading this? I would hope that like myself, it’s to form an opinion of what the new Essentials Network is really going to be. For myself it’s becoming a disappointment and a serious disappointment as I now have to deal with the ACC’s latest heresy and then find comments like Mrs Falstaff’s #44 being posted. As I said at the beginning the Network has “seriously missed the boat by not going back to solid ground.” I, like Pauline but for the completely opposite reason can say “I’m glad I am not in your Church. Whoa! I’m outta here.”
We’ve got the ACoC, the orthodox Anglicans, the more-orthodox Anglicans, and the uber-orthodox Anglicans. Where does it end? Answer: Roman Catholic.
That is, a three-tiered orthodoxy for the three ‘heresies’ if the above wasn’t clear.
I think we’d be surprised if we knew how many people read this blog. Several people have approached me at church and at the conference to comment that they have read my submissions, and I don’t talk that much. Many more are watching our conversations than contribute. I know there are lots of stings I watch but never participate in.
Re Ordination of Women in the ANiC:
At the conference it was made clear, several times, that some of the Common Cause Partners do not permit the ordination of women, some of them do, and that this is going to be a difficult issue as some 10 groups work out a way of becoming a church together. At the conference it was also made clear that at this time the ANiC will continue the practice of ordaning women, while remaining sensitive to the difficulty this causes some of the partners. I believe they have openly identified an area of potential conflict and are sincerely working on a solution, as opposed to telling them that their opinions matter, then ignoring them.
I have a great deal of respect for and faith in the leadership of the ANiC and the Common Cause Council and think perhaps we shouldn’t be looking for ways to stir up the pot while they are still working on the recipe.
*** strings, I watch strings…
Jude,
What is the policy of the Network on the remarriage of divorced persons?
If the ANiC continues to ordain women, it is no better than Ingham – just a different form of scriptural disobedience.
Once you deny the authority of scripture over remarriage after divorce, then there is no way of saying “Yes, but I want to affirm the authority of scripture in relation to ———- or ————”.
That includes WO and it includes homosexuality.
There are other Anglican groups in BC which remain orthodox in all respects. If ANiC wants to claim the moral high ground it should do likewise.
My only point with my comment #44 was to point out that there *is* already an option in Canada, for people who wish to remain Anglican and believe that women cannot be priests. I apologize to obituary for causing offence, and I will try to make my point in a hopefully more charitable manner.
My take on the stand that Essentials is taking is that we will ordain women, but will protect the consciences of members who won’t. Obviously, if you believe strongly that scripture is crystal clear on the matter, and that women cannot be priests, you aren’t going to be comfortable in the ANiC. If, however, you don’t believe in the ordination of women, but accept that it is an issue upon which sincere Christians can disagree, then you may well be comfortable in the ANiC.
RE 53: There are scriptural grounds for remarriage after divorce, in the case of adultery (in the Gospels), and in the case of marriage to an unbeliever (in the case of Paul’s letters). I have also read clear scriptural arguments for the ordination of women, as well. As to the rest, please see my previous comment.
Re: 58
“I have a great deal of respect for and faith in the leadership of the ANiC and the Common Cause Council and think perhaps we shouldn’t be looking for ways to stir up the pot while they are still working on the recipe.”
Here, Here, Jude.
As to #62, this is the same reaction that the ACC gave when the issue of same-sex marriage was hitting the big leagues…protection of consciences….What the ANiC is suggesting is nothing short of what is already in place within the ACC, so why this conference if the ANiC is not going to take full stand against what is/is not Biblical unsound or traditionally Anglican? You can remain within the ACC and still be against same-sex marriage so why the big deal about this ANiC? nothing changes, it is like putting old wine into new skins…..
I’d rather stay as I am, at least I know that the Bible and the BCP are protected and cherished instead of revamping to suit the passing fancies of the day i.e: culture and society dictating to what is Biblical as opposed to the Gospel speaking and disciples following….
Responding to #64, I have to say that the “recipe’ has already been manufactured by the Lord himself and confirmed with the BCP…if you want to make up another “recipe” then call a spade a spade and not claim that it is Biblical and affirming to the BCP with its Ordinal and Preface.
This would be an non-issue if we all get back to the basics, including Bishops of the Church who are supposed to guard and uphold the Faith Once Delivered!
I have much respect for +Harvey, being that he was my Bishop at one time and I have witnessed his deep love of the Anglican Church but cannot help but think that in order to get the “biggest bang for his buck” he is willing to weigh the scales in favour of something less than Traditional. Consensus is great in the world, but as to the spiritual, there can be no consensus. Revamp the Bible and BCP principles and you have exactly what the ACC is today.
Mark 10:11-12: Your questions are moot, and I will not be drawn to the distraction you are tempting us to follow. What is your chuch’s policy on the washing of hands? Split hooves?
Why are those who support Liberal theology on the current sexual issue reaching for straws on matters that have already been dealt with? Beware. It is quite openly, a mean-spirited attempt to distract from their own sin (perhaps even to justify it), and to draw Christ-followers away from the Truth that speaks to the current issue. Let’s get real, here. If you want to argue this issue, then hunker down in scripture and find the basis for your argument and stop trying to get our goats up. I’m not buying into it. Your argument, is regressive — very un-liberal like, if you ask me.
Re: 66 Please see comment #62. You are obviously of the opinion that women cannot be priests. I am of the opinion that it is an issue upon which Christians of clear conscience can disagree.
In response to #68,
#1) Priests of the Anglican Church (Traditional and by the affirmation of the Ordinal and the Preface) cannot be women. End of story.
#2) If you want to claim the women can be “ordained”, call them as they would be in proper vernacular , Priestesses (the word “Priest” is masculine as well!). I would hazzard to guess that you can not find the word “Priestess” associated with the order of clergy from the BCP which ANiC affirms with this conference and in fact the only way that the word “Priestess” is used in language is to point out female ministers of cults unless one associates it with the Anglican Communion as it now stands (and we all know where that is headed or there would be no need of the ANiC). See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priest
Michael,
Now your argument is one of semantics.
I’m not buying into it.
Jim, try thinking about it another way:
why is it that all the provinces which are “buying into” the liberal view on homosexuality have previously bought into liberal divorce/remarriage, and WO?
Clue: first claim the right to reinterpret scripture contrary to the universal Anglican position for four centuries (and in the wider Church from the beginning) – and then you can do what you like without any kind of restraint.
Examples: TEC, ACoC, most western provinces of the Anglican Communion.
Jim,
There is no argument…It is what it is…the question is: Is the ANiC affirming the BCP, the Ordinal and its Preface, or just situating itself in line with an anti-gay movement without substance?
If a person has to get another to “buy into” the BCP then I am afraid it is a lost cause…you are either traditional Anglican affirming and upholding what it contains or on par with the secularism which is occurring within the Anglican Communion?
You cannot be lukewarm…
Mrs Falstaff
There are some NT texts which suggest that it is allowable to leave a marriage, although these run clean contrary to the Lord’s own teaching that no one should divide those whom God has joined together.
I know of none which allow for remarriage after divorce. Let alone serial marriage, a la TEC and elsewhere. Or the ordination of those who have been divorced.
Any church which practises a liberal policy on divorce is already part of the TEC/New Westminster spectrum.
The difference is, that a clear, scriptural argument can be mounted for women’s ordination, whereas the arguments for same sex blessings are invariably from experience.
I am, however, increasingly convinced that Michael and Vincent are not interested in a constructive argument, but merely in venting spleen; statements comparing the ANiC (and by extension its leaders) being especially egregious and troll like.
Neither is there a clear scriptural argument for ordaining women. The Church knew of no such argument for 1,950 years. Lee Tom Oi was ordained by a bishop acting on his own authority, an act afterwards repudiated by the Archbishop of Canterbury. It remains an act characteristic of liberal provinces of the Anglican Communion, and strongly protested by the vast bulk of catholic Christendom from which Anglicanism is derived.
The suggestion that to take issue with WO is somehow “troll like” simply means that you have no case to argue, other than to demand that people shut up.
The recent actions of ANiC, if it is committed to liberal religion with the exception of homosexuality, simply play into the hands of Bishop Ingham, who has pointed out very astutely that he is compelling nobody to engage in blessing gay “marriages”. There is simply no reason to recreate the ACoC and to cause a storm of division in the process.
Alternatively, does ANiC have the courage to go back to Christian basics – the authority of scripture, Christian marriage discipline, and holy orders as Anglicans received them at the Reformation, and in doing so to lead the way to a genuinely renewed Anglicanism in Canada?
There is no argument for women’s “ordination” as it is neither scriptural based nor as the ANiC would have some believe is affirmed by the BCP 1959, its Ordinal and Preface. Obviously, someone forgot to include this “gem” since it cannot be found anywhere in any BCP from 1549 right up through the centuries.
As to this “argument” for women’s “ordination”, show us scripture, tradition and reason…the 3 known facts of Anglicanism.
BTW:Venting spleen by using derogatory statements is especially troll-like..and is most unbecoming of a Christian.
Mrs. Falstaff, show me in the BCP (which the ANiC is saying they affirm) that there is a place for women’s ordination, or even better, show us scriptural basis, even Our Saviour’s mother, a female chosen of God for a specific purpose, was not one of the chosen 12 Apostles, which is what Anglicanism is based upon: Apostolic Succession!
No, I wasn’t suggesting that you “shut up”, nor did I say that I can construct an argument for WO. (although Pricilla was refered to as “diakonos”, sometimes translated as helper, other times as deacon). I simply stated that such arguments exist, and I have read them – I would direct you to a book called “Why Not Women”, published by Youth With A Mission. In internet parlance, a troll is simply someone who isn’t really interested in a serious discussion, but only in stirring things up. I stand by my statement that that is how both of you are behaving.
One cannot state there is not an argument (and by “argument” I mean a stated position) and then pose a question to it. You either have a position or you do not. Given your rhetoric, I am assuming you have an argurment and I respect that. But it is your method of agrument (and that of most liberals) that I am not “buying into” (and by “buying into” I mean it in the coloquial sense that you are trying to sell me on your position). Give me some meat… and I will chew on it. I am simply asking that people produce their arguments with some kind of depth, and not just with statements like “it is what it is” or “end of story” and this doctirne says that thing or this thing WHY do you think one can be either a traditionalist or a religious/secularist and nothing else? Explain to me why you think “it is what it is” and provide some evidence to back it up, including the dismissal of any evidence to the contrary. For example…. if you think that Jesus changed the colour blue into the colour red, don’t just quote the scripture that supports your position but rather, also look at the texts that do NOT support your argument and explain why they are there, what they mean to you and upon what basis you reject them.
And, yes, because you have no real depth to your statments, some will conclude that you are simply here to stir up matters that need not be stirred and to redirect, distract and ridicule. You think you have spotted in the Bishop’s Charge what you may see as a weakness in the ANiC and you have responded to it with simple interjections and repeated questions with little support of your postion. As such, a casual observer of this post such as myself, sees what you are doing as an attempt to shake the ANiC by trying to confuse its members with matters that are already in the process of being worked out by its leaders. You are ignoring the basic biblical principle of the “schism,” And so, I observe that you consider yourself defeated and look to other matters for attack. For example, the matters of women ordination and divorcee marriage are not the reasons for the schism in the ACC, yet you address them as though they are. They are simply, as Jude (58) so eloquently put it, part of a new recipe that needs to be addressed. Your arguments are, thus, hollow. The real discussion here is not about ordination, or schism, or ACC, but rather what scripture says about sexuallity. What do YOU think about that? Why do you think that this issue is divisive only in the West? Then, explain why you think so, and argue against the parts of God’s Word that do not support your positon (the liberal thinkers in Anglicanism have already failed to do this). These kinds of profound arguments are the kinds that I buy into. The depth of them scares me, cuz I’m not that brilliant… but I cannot simply assume that your position on any matter is a good one simply because you say so, or your priest(ess) tells you it’s so, or you single out a supporting passage out of context… any more than you can assume mine is correct for the same reasons.
Mrs Falstaff, I could direct you to a vast amount of theological literature on the question of WO. The most substantial scriptural treatment I have found is Manfred Hauke’s “Women in the Priesthood?” and there are many, many more.
But what you have read or I have read is not the issue. What is at issue is the actions of ANiC in setting up a parallel Anglican church and the justification for doing so. If it is simply going to make the same mistakes, from the outset, as those made by PECUSA, ACoC and elsewhere in the Anglican Communion, then why bother?
And if it is simply going to be, to compress language for a moment, “anti-gay but pro-women and pro-divorce” then it will simply be perceived as a homophobic reactionary movement, which claims the authority of scripture in one regard, but ignores it in others.
It would be good to have some assurance from the outset that ANiC is not going to reinvent a broken wheel – but so far we are told that it will carry on ordaining women. In other words, just another Continuing Church with no future.
Can someone tell us that this will not be the case – please?
As one of the noted clergymen supporting this ANiC had stated on a video posted here on the Essentials website, this is likened to an iceberg, only the very tip can be seen (and here he states it is the sexuality issue) but more lies underneath.
What have ANiC done to disclose the rest of the “iceberg”…absolutely nothing because there is only one agenda here, and that is an anti-gay movement, not a much needed overhauling of Anglicanism that is now present since the inception of female “ordination”…when the Anglican Communion allowed this to happen, it opened a whole can of worms that nobody could see the future..
As for Jim, how deep does one need to look when faced with affirming the BCP (1959) and not understanding the fact that women’s “ordination” is not in line with traditional Anglicanism and thereby cannot be held by any party suggesting that they are “affirming” the BCP.
The discussion of same-sex marriage is on par with anything that have challenged the Church in centuries previous, will you stand up and say no or just reinvent a gay-bashing for the heck of it?
The ANiC, as it stands now is nothing more than “in-fighting” and does absolutely nothing for the Gospel message…
BTW: The ANiC is saying alot of things about evangelism but nothing about Jesus’ charge to feed the hungry, look after the widowed….I guess the money will flow into programs which contain paper pushing and much rhetoric meanwhile children starve everyday for physical food…
This is NOT an organic, growing, visible Church…this is hierarchy at its finest…
I think Michael, you may have missed the section on the ARDFC, The Canadian branch of these guys: http://www.anglicanaid.net/
Perhaps you are quicker to critisise than check the basis for your critisism.
Isn’t it quite strange that a “Global South” branch is supported by Global South?
If this were indeed part of the ministry, why not include it with “What the church will be” instead of hiding it through webpages….and I see that although the aim is very good in its educational aspect, it still misses out on the children who are starving…reminds me of the type of “evangelism” which occurs when Churches need to make an effort by feeding with books…not bad a bad concept but very hard to do when your stomach is empty!
With that being said, thank you for pointing out this work of the ANiC and to the population which is “in the Global South adhering to the biblically based Anglican tradition.” (quoted directly from the ARDF website)…I go back to what I have been saying..the ANiC is not biblically based Anglican tradition, just another form of anti-gay movement under the banner of the Anglican Communion..
Jesus met people where they were, not because they may ascribe to certain dogma or belief system..in fact the very people he ministered to where outside the realm of what was considered “the norm”…..
Reminds me of Jerry Falwell and his Moral Majority case….who can forget?
I am not an Anglican (although I attended an “orthodox-evangelical” Anglican church for two years), but I find this thread “interesting”. I have a few observations: some commenters place the BCP and Anglican tradition at the same level as the bible; some commenters seem to view all doctrine as being of equal importance; some commenters make category errors (i.e. treat two separate issues as though they were identical). Although comments have generally been expressed articulately, there is not always a correlation between the ability to articulate and the ability to think logically. Finally, there is a lack of charity throughout the thread (and I do not plead innocent).
My comment is doubtlessly self serving (as I find many blog “discussions” to be) and I am under no delusion that it will help build God’s kingdom. For those so inclined, feel free to fire away (perhaps employing some heavy artillery that has already been used above); I will not respond.
You all might read this by Mills on C. S. Lewis’s thought re W.O.
“Rationality and Revelation: C. S. Lewis and Lambeth”
By David Mills
OK here goes again. Try clicking on “obituary” for the link other wise its here
http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/12The/SxTh/WmO/WmODMlls.htm
Michael,
First this, then that, then oh yeah, but….
Bail that boat buddy… keep bailin’ your boat.
Jim,
In response to #86:
We can see how the truth just brings the worst out of people. Seems like we have touched on a sensitive subject eh? LOL
Looks like Michael has finally taken off his sheep’s clothing in #80 and #82 re the ANiC with words such as “in-fighting”, “anti-gay movement”, “gay-bashing for the heck of it”, “does absolutely nothing for the Gospel message…”, “This is NOT an organic, growing, visible Church…this is hierarchy at its finest…”, “just another form of anti-gay movement under the banner of the Anglican Communion”, and last but not least, “Jesus met people where they were, not because they may ascribe to certain dogma or belief system..in fact the very people he ministered to where outside the realm of what was considered “the norm”…..” – but Michael forgets to finish what Jesus said, “GO AND SIN NO MORE”.
It is now clear that Michael is really not listening to what is being said and obviously has an agenda as noted from the beginning of his comments above starting at #16 to bash ANiC. Note how deceptive he is at first and then how harsh and unloving he becomes near the end. Brothers and Sisters in Christ Jesus, beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing. I know that he will respond to my comments just like the others, but I will not reply, and therefore, help to sharpen his fangs.
Although you quote tidbits of scripture without the full context, we shall overlook that small detail (and the fact that Rick will not respond because he has nothing whatsoever to add and/or defend)…
The ANiC has stated emphatically time and time again that they uphold the Solemn Declaration found in the BCP that was dated 1893. let me quote (with my own capitalization to bring emphasis only) from this most illustrious piece of Anglicanism:
“…and the Form and Manner of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons’; and in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion; and to TRANSMIT THE SAME UNIMPAIRED TO OUR POSTERITY”
Obviously, to do anything outside this Declaration would be to trample the very document which ANiC is quoting as maintaining and upholding…
To “ordain” females to any order is in fact, making the Declaration null and void in this newly formed Global conglomeration under the ANiC…and further to this, makes any statements regarding the ANiC affirming the BCP and Holy Scriptures as the basis of belief system is just a whitewash for what is really at stake in any continuing Anglican Movement. Hence, the ANiC is nothing more than a revamped ACC with an anti-gay agenda.
Beware of wolves’ in sheep’s clothing I’d say!
Follow-up for Rick and comment in #88:
I am michael, not Michael…..you really should check all your facts before making any large statements and misquoting people….Just goes to show how observant you are, prehaps if you took the blinders off you could tell the difference between schism and true protest…
Bishop Ingham’s letter to the clergy of New Westminster:
http://www.vancouver.anglican.ca/diocese/Portals/0/Repository/MemorandumNov23-07.pdf
Michael,
Yes… now it would seem someone has touched a sensitive spot. I have grown weary of your pointless accusations and demeaning, destructive vocabulary.
C-ya,
The truth shall set you free……
Dear Rick (#88),
As “michael” pointed out, we are two different posters – perhaps I should identify myself more specifically somehow, but in any case, I wanted to make it clear that my earlier comment (#16) was not in any way intended to bash the Anglican Network. I have a lot of respect for the people in the Network, the Essentials Federation, and the Common Cause movement. In my own theological work (I am a seminary student), I approach each topic by asking the basic question of how it relates to the unity of the body of Christ. Thus, when I see (what are encouraging) statements from the ANiC and Common Cause leaders that they want Christians who hold each view (on the ordination of women) to be able to work together, and form one ecclesial body, I want to examine the issues, and to determine what is necessary for this to be possible, keeping in mind that ultimately I don’t want “Anglican unity”, but unity of the *entire* body of Christ, in one visible communion. If that is our hope, then we need to – with as little personal interest or emotional distraction as possible – have a full and clear discussion of what is necessary in order to reach that state.
In this particular case, I simply pointed out that I wanted clarification on what it meant for the ANiC to protect the consciences of those who disagreed with the ordination of women, and pointed out that there are some real difficulties here. Those who believe strongly in the ordination of women want an ecclesial structure where woman may freely serve in any position in the church (which is only natural). But if there is a large number of clergy who do not accept the ordination of women, then it is very difficult to have female bishops, and there will be parishes that won’t accept women as priests. However, if one believes that the priesthood must be male, then they don’t simply want to (as a private opinion) hold that women should not be ordained, but will want to have an ecclesial structure where they are certain that orders are valid, and where they can teach plainly and clearly what they believe the priesthood actually is, and recruit young men to that model and understanding of clerical ministry.
This doesn’t mean that the Network can’t work, or that I want to knock it. If the Network (and ultimately the Common Cause Partnership) can come up with a workable proposal for how Anglicans on both sides of this issue can work together in a way that respects the theological consciences of both sides, then I would heartily applaud it as an important step for Christian unity. After all, even though I hold a profoundly different understanding of Ordination than most Baptists or Pentecostals, I rejoice in the common bonds of Christian fellowship that we do have, and wish for more co-operation between churches. And yet there is a level of impaired communion, which is very sad.
Thus, in short, any proposal that leads to better co-operation between Christians of different traditions and beliefs is an exciting development – in the short or medium term. Yet ultimately, what is needed is a real evaluation of the various theological issues that are a bar to full unity, to seek what is necessary for all Christians to be united at the Lord’s Table. And that takes work, and the ability to handle sensitive questions and issues without suspicion, pride, or personal ambition getting in the way. It takes humility, patience, and a spirit of mutual submission. That’s tough. But I’m very glad that the Network is committed to that sort of process.
Sincerely,
Michael
Well said Michael, but I fear there will be no clear cut answers to what you ask. As the ANiC has gone on record and said they will continue to “ordain” women until the Anglican Communion becomes of one mind on this issue (and that will happen only when the Anglican Communion becomes one mind on the other issues, which we all know will be never) and further to this, “ordain” to the Diaconate and Presbyerate..how will a governing body determine where this will end philosophically, morally as well as spiritually? To take it a little further, what justification can the ANiC come up with to continue the trend of “ordaining” women to the first two orders then decide to stop…
This reminds me of the slip-slop mess of the BAS.. that particular Ordinal reads that the Diaconate and the Presbyerate is open to both sexes but from the reading of the Consecration of Bishops, it does not mention the “he/she” that was included with the making of Deacons and Priests, it simply states “he” when referring to the person being consecrated….
BCP and ANiC…I think not, just a fancy invention by another anti-gay group under the guise of “Biblical, Scriptural, traditional Anglicans”…
There are answers hidden in the written submissions from the ANiC and definitely does not reflect any deep Scriptural basis.
#12 “I wonder where this will lead” most interesting.
It appears that this blog is becomin much like some of the blogs on Global South.
To Michael re #94
First, please accept my apologies for thinking that you were the little “m” michael. Secondly, thank you for explaining your concern so precisely in #94. I really enjoyed reading your comments and can understand your concerns. I think they are quite valid. Thirdly, what I noticed even more was your delivery which was an obvious indication that our Lord has given you the fruits of the Holy Spirit. “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness (Galatians 5:22). Love – that you show love for your brothers and sisters in Christ, patience – you are willing to give the Lord and fellow brothers and sisters time to work things out as they stated they would, kindness – although you could have been upset with me for mistaking you for michael, you showed kindness to me, faithfulness – your comments revealed a strong faith – to trust our Lord to make us one.
I know two female Anglican Priests quite well and they have a very strong love for the Lord and have held fast to the word of God and have born much fruit in their ministry. It is God fearing women like this who have been salt and light in this world there Spirit driven ministry may help to console those who wrestle with the ordination of women into the priesthood. It is a difficult situation.
May God continue to bless you in your ministry. I feel that He already has.
This is quite the thread. It is an important thread, and I hope that the ‘powers that be’ in the new Network are reading and absorbing what is being discussed or thrown around. This will give them an idea of how important an issue this is for folks.
J.I. Packer wrote an article entitled, “Let’s Stop Making Women Presbyters” (originally published in Christianity Today, February 11, 1991). In this article, he asks “is there not a better way of benefiting from women’s ministry than by ordaining them?” He states: “What in Scripture weights the scales against the practice of making women presbyters? It is just the fact that though the New Testament celebrates in all sorts of ways Jesus’ affirmation of particular women as disciples and friends, and though ministering women keep appearing in the narrative of Acts and the letters of Paul, nothing is said of women being chosen as presbyters.” Packer’s arguments against the ordination of women as presbyters are most persuasive. It would be worthwhile for folks posting here on both sides of the issue to find the article and read through it.
Notwithstanding Packer’s summation of the situation, the Bible clearly teaches that only gifted and called men are to lead the Church. In fact, there are men in ordained capacities right now who should be excluded from ministry because their lives do not reflect the character requirements set forth in God’s Word. (1 Timothy 2:8-1 Timothy 3:7). When this passage is taken in context, one can see that women and men–husbands and wives–are both spoken of in these passages. The Bible is pretty plain here concerning the complementary roles God has assigned men and women and I don’t think that this particular passage requires any further ‘tweaking’ or ‘nuancing’ in order to understand what is being plainly said.
My position has always been that you cannot say the Bible is clear on teaching about homosexuality and then say that it is not clear about women leading the Church. You cannot have one without the other if you’re being honest. We may not like it, we may not agree with it, it may make us cringe and hate what we’re reading but nevertheless it is God’s Word written. Don’t you think that God has an idea of how His created order should function in homes, society, and the Church? I think so.
For those who are interested, there is an online resource entitled “Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” edited by Wayne Grudem and John Piper that is worth reading. It discusses many issues surrounding male and female roles and it is a most helpful tool that should provoke some thought on this issue. Here is the link: http://www.cbmw.org/Recovering-Biblical-Manhood-and-Womanhood/ Another resource available is the Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Signatories to this document include J.I. Packer, D.A. Carson, R. Kent Hughes, R.C. Sproul, John M. Frame, Mary Kassian, John Piper, Peter Williamson and others. That link is here: http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/cbmw/rbmw/appendix2.html
From what I can gather, the Network’s position is that it does not wish to grapple with this issue, and has decided that until the WHOLE Anglican Communion comes to one mind over this issue, they will continue to recognize and actively ordain women as presbyters. What are the odds of the whole Communion sitting down to discuss this issue and arrive at a 100% conclusion? Quite slim. Certainly not in our lifetime.
So, given this, one must reason that to stay with the Network is to accept the continuing ordination of women into the presbyterate and all that that entails for the Church. My feeling is that at the next general meeting of the Network, this issue is dealt with once-and-for-all, with all principles providing their voice, and a clear decision be made for all to see. Please don’t do the ‘Anglican’ thing of just waiting it out or ignoring it. No matter what is decided, there will be angst, anger, tears, frustration, sorrow, betrayal, you name it…but none of this changes the fact of God’s Word and instruction to us. He has left us with a mode of governing our homes, Church, and society that is supposed to bring us joy of service for His glory. All of us are under the authority of Jesus Christ and it is to Him that we must look to in times of trial and challenge.
This is a momentous and historic time for the Network in Canada. My prayer is that they take another bold step collectively and stop ordaining women presbyters until such time as a clear decision is made to either follow God’s Word and instruction, or gloss over it and carry on business as usual.
Rev. Melby,
You recommend articles by J. Packer and W. Grudem. You recommend material by two people who have made the following contribution to Bible translation.
Look at
2 Tim. 2:2, and(A) what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses(B) entrust to faithful men(C) who will be able to teach others also.
Eph. 4:8, Therefore it says,
(A) “When he ascended on high(B) he led a host of captives,
and he gave gifts to men.”
Gal. 1:12, (A) For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it(B) through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
2 Peter 1:21, For(A) no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God(B) as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
1 Thess. 2:13, And(A) we also thank God constantly[a] for this, that when you received(B) the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it(C) not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God,(D) which is at work in you believers.
1 John 5:9 If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God(B) that he has borne concerning his Son.
This is from the preface to the ESV.
In the area of gender language, the goal of the ESV is to render literally what is in the original. For example, “anyone” replaces “any man” where there is no word corresponding to “man” in the original languages, and “people” rather than “men” is regularly used where the original languages refer to both men and women. But the words “man” and “men” are retained where a male meaning component is part of the original Greek or Hebrew.
One has to ask why anthropos (plural) was not translated as “people” in these verses. My guess is because Drs. Packer and Grudem felt that they knew that “men only” was the meaning intended by God. but one has to ask how they received this special knowledge about the male maning complonent. Normally anthropos in the plural would be translated as people, and, in fact, that is what is done in the ESV when references are made to salvation and not to teaching. So, these men have created a new version of the Bible from which to teach their view of women, that women are alienated from teaching, from the gifts, from prophecy, from giving testimony, etc.
You might want to also look up
Gen. 3:16, Rom. 16:7, 1 Cor. 11:10 , 1 Tim. 2:12 in the ESV and ask yourself why these verses vary from the King James version to the extent that they do.
It is also worth noting that Wayne Grudem, whose work you recommend, also wrote this sentence,
“in fact, the major Greek lexicons for over 100 years have said that adelphoi, which is the plural of the word adelphos, ‘brother” sometimes means “brothers and sisters” (see BAGD, 1957 and 1979, Liddell-Scott-Jones, 1940 and even 1869).
This material was new evidence to those of us who wrote the May 27 guidelines – we weren’t previously aware of this pattern of Greek usage outside the Bible. Once we saw these examples and others like them, we felt we had to make some change in the guidelines.”
in The TNIV and the GNB, 2004, p. 425 – 426,
From this we know that Wayne Grudem wrote the original draft for the gender guidelines which were later used in the ESV translation without referring to a lexicon.
Are you aware that Sproul wrote that every Bible he owned translated Matt. 5:9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.” Sproul then said,
“My German Bible, my Dutch Bible, and my French Bible translate it ‘sons.’ Likewise, every English Bible I own translates it ‘sons.’ Indeed, from the first century until today, the whole world has understood what the Greek says. ”
Have a look at the KJV.
Are you really recommending the writings of these men to the readers here?
– “male meaning component” typing too fast –