Anglican Network in Canada – CORRECTION OF MISINFORMATION
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 29 February 2008
Correction of misinformation about women’s ordination
Some recent media stories have implied that women’s ordination is somehow an issue in the current crisis in the Canadian Anglican church. It is not.
While the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone currently does not practice women’s ordination, the North American churches which have sought and received refuge under the Primate of the Southern Cone are completely free to practice their consciences on this matter.
Of the eight clerics currently licenced by Anglican Network in Canada moderator Bishop Donald Harvey under the jurisdiction of the Province of the Southern Cone, three are women, including the Rev Desiree Stedman (Ottawa) who holds the prestigious role of assistant to Bishop Harvey.
The real issue is theological: the profound differences on key Christian teachings and the irreconcilable views of the Bible. Even to say the issue is sexuality is a gross simplification. Sexual ethics is merely the tip of the iceberg, a reflection of much deeper theological constructs.
Parishes that have chosen to take such a difficult and serious decision – to seek the protection and care of a bishop outside the Anglican Church of Canada – do so because the parishioners deeply value their Anglican heritage and want to stay true to global and historic Anglican teaching and orthodoxy. They want to faithfully preserve what has been entrusted to them by their Anglican forbearers, so they can pass it on, intact and unaltered, to future generations.
These parishioners, while perhaps in the minority in Canada, stand firmly in the mainstream of global and historic Anglican teaching and orthodoxy. Their beliefs are shared by roughly two-thirds of the 77 million Anglicans worldwide. So, it could be said that rather than leaving, they are actually staying – staying true to the fundamental and historic tenets of Anglican Christianity and staying in full communion with the global Anglican Church.
They have acted only after exhausting all possible alternative avenues.
Are you taking down comments in this forum? this is unbelievable. talk about being unwilling to allow criticism.
Cranmer,
???
Actually, the people who operate this blog have allowed me to be quite critical; much more so than I would have expected. I would probably find it difficult to be so gracious if I was running a blog.
Posted Yesterday and then removed by the Essentials Thought Police:
“Perhaps the media misreported the O of W issue because the have a greater understanding of the integrity of these two issues than Bishop Harvey does.”
Well, I’m an administrator for the blog and my answer to you is gone too…
What I said was, I’m sure that Bishop Harvey does understand what you see as the integrity of the two issues – I’m equally sure he doesn’t agree.
By the way, why assume malice when it could just as easily have been a computer burp? Since I’ve been a writer here, 0 (zero) people have been banned and 1 (one) person has been put on comment moderation, after he had been warned repeatedly that he was not following the (very few) blog rules. (And Peter was exceedingly reluctant to do that- put him on moderation, that is).
Elephants are so messy.
OBIT! Really, now……
Your comment wasn’t in fact removed, Cranmer, nor was mine. You didn’t correctly remember where you put it. Your original comment is right here
I do apologise if it was a computer burp. I assumed that because this was a touchy area, your administrators removed it.
Could you tell me was this an intentional removal or was it a computer burp? Again if it was the latter than I apologise for jumping to conclusions.
I stand corrected and offer an unqualified apology.
Apology accepted. Now if I could only figure out why I can’t make the [insert language I used to use before I was a Christian here] links work. Maybe I just need another coffee.
It’s under more news articles, and I still need more coffee.
Kate: Easy on the coffee!!!
Ummmmmmmmmmmm…Java………………
Wow, fourteen comments on this thread, and we still haven’t actually discussed the original post! Ah, blogs…
Something needs to be added to the post, I think, to clarify that when the Network says that “the North American churches are free to practice their consciences on this matter”, that this is a freedom which has not been available in the Anglican Church of Canada or the Episcopal Church. The American diocese that has joined Southern Cone did so specifically because their stance on this issue was no longer tolerated by the national church, and it was feared that another traditionalist bishop would not be allowed to serve in San Joaquin. The Anglican Church of Canada does not, to the best of my knowledge, permit seminarians who conscientiously object to the ordination of women to proceed to Holy Orders. This has forced such candidates outside of the Anglican Communion. The ANiC, while rejecting misinformation, should also state clearly that their policy, of seeking to respect people who hold either opinion, is more inclusive and liberal than that of the Anglican Church of Canada!
Actually #6,7,8 were on topic.
One thing to remember, WordPress uses Askimet to catch spam, an automatic system that is often very good, sometimes absolutely horrible!
And I’ll tell you what, there is a thousand posts sitting in the spam queue, so if something ended up in there – well – in there it will remain, sorry!
This press release twice uses the phrase “global and historic Anglican teaching and orthodoxy”.
So the Southern Cone does not “currently” practice women’s ordination. Why use the word “currently” unless to imply that this view could be changed in future? And if that’s the case, how would that happen within the context of “historic Anglican teaching” that will be passed on “intact and unaltered, to future generations”?
And what of these different rules on women’s ordination for South American and North American churches? Isn’t that a violation of the concept of “global” teaching and orthodoxy? And how does the Southern Cone decide which deviations from historic teaching can be allowed based on conscience (e.g. women’s ordination) and which cannot (e.g. same-sex blessings)?
With respect to the female priests who are currently licensed under Bishop Harvey, isn’t it fair to say that they are only priests because of the liberal Anglicans in past decades who dared to challenge “global and historic Anglican teaching and orthodoxy”?
And just in case anyone thought that this press release would put the issue to bed, check out the discussion which has arisen on Virtue Online since they posted the press release yesterday.
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=7842
Anyone who thinks that women’s ordination will not be an issue over the longer term within the global Anglican orthodox community, is dreaming in colour.
Rob, we are trying to keep this discussion confined to one thread. Could you please comment over here -
http://www.anglicanessentials.ca/wordpress/index.php/2008/02/29/more-news-articles-2/
I know it’s odd that WO isn’t in the title, but that’s just how it worked out. Thanks.