From here.
Leigh Anne Williams
Staff writer
Jun 27, 2009The Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) elected its first archbishop and ratified a constitution and canons at its first Provincial Assembly in Dallas and Fort Worth, Tex. from June 22 to 25.
However, the church is still seeking recognition as a new province within the worldwide Anglican Communion.
The Anglican Church of Canada and The Episcopal Church in the U.S are presently the only ecclesial bodies in North America recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury. ACNA leaders say the new province would be defined along theological lines rather than be based in a particular geographical area as provinces in the Anglican Communion traditionally are. The preamble to the constitution says that ACNA members are “grieved by the current state of brokenness within the Anglican Communion prompted by those who have embraced erroneous teaching and who have rejected a repeated call to repentance.”
ACNA, composed largely of clergy and parishioners who have left the Anglican Church of Canada and The Episcopal Church in the U.S over theological issues such as the blessing of same-sex unions and the ordination of a U.S. gay bishop, announced its formation last December. About 260 clergy and lay delegates, including 13 from Canada, attended this inaugural assembly.
Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh was elected by the college of bishops as the ACNA’s first archbishop. “It is a great day because working together, we have been able, by God’s grace, to reunite a significant portion of our Anglican Church family here in North America,” he said before his installation.
Describing the assembly, Bishop Donald Harvey, moderator of the Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC), said “There was a marvelous mood of co-operation and hope there. We had allowed three sessions for the adoption of the constitution and the canons and it was done in less than two. Everything passed unanimously all the time.”
He was quick to add, however, that he was “not naïve enough to think that in future synods there won’t be discontents of some sort arising,” noting that ACNA is a coming together of a number of different groups. Along with ANiC, which says it represents about 4,000 Anglicans in 30 congregations across Canada, ACNA includes dioceses and parishes that have left The Episcopal Church, the Anglican Mission in the Americas; the Convocation of Anglicans in North America; the Anglican Coalition in Canada; the Reformed Episcopal Church; and the missionary initiatives of Kenya, Uganda, and South America’s Southern Cone. Additionally, the American Anglican Council and Forward in Faith North America are founding organizations. ACNA says it represents approximately 100,000 Anglicans in 700 parishes.
Bishop Harvey noted that some of the groups that have united have been out of the mainline of Anglicanism for a long time, in the case of the Reformed Episcopal Church, for more than 100 years. “The big issue that’s there, though certainly not for us in Canada at this stage, is the ordination of women,” he said. Some of the churches within ACNA are opposed to this, but Bishop Harvey said ANiC’s policy is that “any office that can be held by a man can be held by a woman.” However, he explained, that “for the sake of launching this province,” ANiC agreed to abide by the ACNA decision that no diocese would appoint woman to the episcopacy in the immediate future. Women can hold positions as priests and deacons. “I’ve spoken to all of the women priests in ANiC about the reasons for us going along with something that is not really part of our own constitution,” he said, to reassure them that this temporary agreement does not represent a change in ANiC’s position. “It was to facilitate something rather than to change a doctrine. And they have all been very supportive. They know why we’re doing it.”
Bishop Harvey said that the Anglican Network in Canada will continue to operate much as it did before becoming a diocese of ACNA. “To the average person in the pew, you won’t see any difference at all,” he said. Congregations that left the Anglican Church of Canada aligned themselves with the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone in South America and Archbishop Gregory Venables.
Bishop Harvey said that relationship will diminish as the relationship with ACNA grows. “We have assurance from Archbishop Venables that for a period of time, there may be sort of a dual relationship. We are reluctant to sever our ties with the Southern Cone … until we know a sufficient proportion of the Anglican world is recognizing this as a province.” Bishop Harvey noted that the voluntary 10 per cent tithe that ANiC has been sending to the Southern Cone will now go to ACNA, “with perhaps some money still going to the Southern Cone, in gratitude for what they have done.”
ACNA reported that nine provinces in the Anglican Communion sent representatives to the assembly: West Africa, Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya (Archbishop Benjamin Nzimbi), Southern Cone (including Archbishop Venables), Jerusalem & the Middle East, Myanmar, South East Asia and Rwanda. The provinces of Nigeria and Uganda have officially recognized ACNA.
“Together, these provinces represent the Anglican Communion’s two largest provinces and tens of millions of Anglicans,” Archbishop Duncan said at his installation. ANCA leaders hope support of this kind will grow.
Winter Traveler, unfortunately the design and doctrinal statement of Essentials made ir unpalatable to Anglo-Catholics, although some have been sympathetic to its general intention. I regret that high Anglicans and Anglo-Catholics never formed some parallel organization to defend orthodoxy. I would have thought that sich a group could have joined ANiC as an addinity diocese/gtouping where its theology and scruples against WO would have been respected (or it could have established a separate organization like ACiC, or joined with an American Anglo-Catholic organization.) I am disappointed that are are fleeing to Rome, and that more fo not care to fight for traditional orthodox Anglicanism.
But it’s not too late yet! Let us pray that such a grouping may emerge.
Re WO, I was taken aback by Bishop Don’s comments, even though I support bishops and forsaw problems within ANiC from their prohibition. My understanding, obtained through reading of hints and allusions, was that anti-WO ACNA groupings were going to suggest a theological reecamination of WO within ACNA with the eventual objective of ending it entirely. Now we see that there may be a movement in the other direction. There are storm clouds ahead — but for the moment the weather is fine and it’s quite appropriate to enjoy our celebratiory picnic for a while.
I wouldn’t draw too many conclusions from one thread, Toral. As far as Essentials/ANiC as a movement being unpalatable to Anglo Catholics is concerned… well, Bishop Don is pretty high church himself.
I’m wondering if there is another issue here. Have we been under leaders we can’t trust for so long that we’ve got into the habit of mistrusting them? In the end, we are not a congregational church. We are under the authority of Bishop Don Harvey, and Archbishop Bob Duncan, and both of them will ordain women as deacons and presbyters. So, do we trust their judgement, or not? There have been many times that I have disagreed with my priest on various church decisions, and I have made my opinion known, but in the end, I trust him to lead us in a Godly way. I think we need to give our leaders room to lead.
#50 Kate
I agree there aren’t vast amounts of scripture specifically against WO. Then again, specific Biblical prohibitions against homosexual activity are also few and far between. Traditional Christian teachings on both subjects, though, are not just based upon the standard proof texts but grounded in a wider scriptural world view regarding human sexuality based upon created order. St. Paul aside, it’s difficult to admit WO without simultaneously discarding large chunks of Biblical anthropology.
My point was, an argument for WO can be made without ignoring vast amounts of scripture, not that scripture doesn’t talk much about women’s roles. You seem determined to brand any ANiC member who supports WO a hypocrite. Have fun with that. You and I have been over this before on this very blog, and frankly I am not interested in going another round with you. I believe that it is an issue on which Christians in good conscience can agree to disagree and still be in comunion with one another, and I trust that the ACNA leaders will look for God’s leading and try to do His will, in this and in all other things.
#46 Just to clarify – I gather there are permanent/vocational deacons as well as transitional deacons in ANiC and ACiC. Receiving delegated authority also means that person is accountable to someone. Yes, in some denominations – Presbyterian, Baptist, etc. a deacon is a lay officer – i.e. parish council member.
NA (#53), if I may put my tongue firmly in my cheek for a moment, do you think I should put more weight on this comment with which I have no argument, or on the wider perspective of your previous comments with which I have often disagreed?
More seriously, I agree that one must be careful to not place more importance on a few proof texts than on the history of salvation as laid out in the totality of Scripture. I disagree, however, with your inference that a direct parallel can be drawn between the Bible’s teaching on homosexual behaviour and what it has to say about women teaching men truth from God’s Word. If I’m walking down the street and encounter a woman street evangelist, I won’t flee fearing God’s judgment. I would flee if I were propositioned by a man in a public washroom.
#55 – the ACoC has no permanent diaconate in the areas with which I am familiar (Ottawa and Toronto). There is a canon law still on the books for “deaconesses”, but it’s a dead letter.
The Roman Catholic church in Ottawa has ordained a number of married men as permanent deacons, however.
(#56) Warren
“More seriously, I agree that one must be careful to not place more importance on a few proof texts than on the history of salvation as laid out in the totality of Scripture. I disagree, however, with your inference that a direct parallel can be drawn between the Bible’s teaching on homosexual behaviour and what it has to say about women teaching men truth from God’s Word.”
I’m not arguing that the two issues are exactly parallel. They’re not. However, both are commonly grounded in the same basic theology of gender complementarity so I’m struggling to understand why departure from the underlying doctrine to allow one is a matter on which Christians in good conscience can disagree, but the other is not.
We are very clearly told in scripture that acting on same sex attraction is a sin. There are places in scripture where Paul seems to tell us that women shouldn’t lead, and other places where he entreats the brothers and sisters to support women leaders. A good argument, from scripture, can be mounted for both sides of the WO issue. The same cannot be said for the SSB issue. I don’t think I can be much clearer than that.
That may be so, but do the “women leaders” he is talking have the same roles as those he prohibits? Not unless he’s changed his mind! (the chaplain at my university maintains that the Pastoral Epistles were written “much later” by someone other than Paul who was sadly conservative, and thus less inspired).
I do not think the pro-WO argument is a good one, because it must twist the meaning of 1 Tim 2:12 in order to get it into line with the supposed practice of the early church. Is this unfair? Not if pro-WO arguments take “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man” and make it into “I do not permit a woman to missuse (or be domineering) her authority over a man.” This surely is twisting Scripture like Erasmus does in his Diatribe (re: Luther vs. Erasmus).
I am advocating the complementarian approach which someone mentioned earlier, namely, that men and women are to serve God in different but complementary ways. There is a good presentation on this issue at The Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, which also takes a complementarian approach.
What do people believe about “headship”? This is, I think, the reason for Paul’s prohibition of women in church leadership and it is explained in 1 Cor. 11 pt. 1 and in Creation itself (Gen. 2-3).
Well, I think the headship problem is solved by not conscerating women bishops.
Charles, really, could you tone down your language a bit please? I am assuming goodwill on your part, please do me the same courtesy. More later….
There are way too many books in this house, and I can’t find the one I want to quote from. When I do I will be back. It argues convincingly (well, to me anyway) for the position that the letter to Timothy was meant for that particular situation, and was a church order issue in that particular time and place. This would mesh with the endorsement of the women leaders in Romans, and not require that they be a different form of leadership than what is prohibited in Timothy. Anyway, I remember being convinced by it, but have forgotten the details off the top of my head. I will look for the book and get back to you.
Obviously, Charles, you don’t think that this is an agree to disagree issue. If so, then I guess you have a decision to make about whether you can in good conscience remain a part of the ACoC or ANiC, judging from the ACoC’s position and what I have read about what Bishop Don has said on the issue.
#60 – Or, the prohibition wasn’t universal, and was meant only for the church that Timothy led. Either position is logical and consistent.
Like Kate, I think there are reasonable arguments on both sides of the WO issue; I don’t think the same can be said for SSBs.
Theologians and ANiC clergy whose opinions I respect view WO as a secondary issue and one that it is possible to compromise on – which is what is happening in the ACNA. No human institution is perfect; as far as I am concerned the ACNA – with its compromise on WO – is much to be preferred to the ACoC.
I meant to add, one of the reasons I think it is possible to come to the conclusion that the prohibitions on women’s leadership in Timothy are for that time and place is because of Phoebe and Pricilla’s existence as leaders. There are no scriptures that affirm acting on on same sex attraction, so that “time and place” argument isn’t possible.
Kate:
I’m not sure if it’s the book you’re thinking of, but I just finished reading Slaves, Women and Homosexuals by William J Webb (IVP) and this is where he comes down after applying 18 different criteria to the subject. I mentioned this book on an earlier thread, and have now finished the book. Good reading on all three subjects.
No, I haven’t read that one. I was thinking of “Why Not Women” published by YWAM. I think a trip to the bookstore might be in order. Like I need more books….
Kate, I’m sorry if I offended you in my comments. I know I tend to use strong language, but I believe, like Luther, that theology should be expressed passionately because much is at stake if we go astray in our teaching. This may surprise you, but I actually think that WO is an agree to disagree issue, and as I stated, is not a salvation issue. I think that it is important as an issue of Biblical faithfulness and that is why I argued strongly against it. I’m genuinely sorry if you were personally hurt by my tone, and hope you’ll accept my apology for harm done, as I was contending with your ideas, not with you as a person.
In Christ,
Charles
It was the accusation of “twisting scripture” that annoyed me, Charles. Apology accepted.
I think the broad consensus even among those who are against WO is that it is not a communion-breaking issue. It has not divided Anglicanism, though it may have impaired our relations with the Catholic Church — and even then, not enough to sever relations completely. Some people felt strongly enough to leave, but many more remained.
After all, the Head of our church is Queen Elizabeth, who was a woman last time I checked. And she has authority over the Archbishop of Canterbury, who last time I checked was a man.
Kate – C’mon ease up on the skin cream, if you are going to debate do so without personal emotion getting in the way. I saw no insult directed at you by Charles. Twisting scripture has been a long ignoble practice in the church, just as twisting logic has been a woman’s weapon of debate forever.
Equality is either complimetarian or egalitarian in consideration of God’s Creation which is it Kate? ML #46 and I are waiting for your answer.
Ellie M. The head of my church is Jesus Christ the Son not daughter of the Father not mother. I await that illuminating day when there will be no more male or female at that time will God’s curse upon us in our banishment from Eden be ended. Although I believe such a concept is within our reach if not our grasp.
Her Majesty my Queen is titled “Defender of the Faith” I hope and pray her silence that is beyond my understanding is in accordance with the will of God. For she has become the last expression of my secular loyalty.
From Kate #62
“Obviously, Charles, you don’t think that this is an agree to disagree issue. If so, then I guess you have a decision to make about whether you can in good conscience remain a part of the ACoC or ANiC, judging from the ACoC’s position and what I have read about what Bishop Don has said on the issue.”
If in fact we have to agree to disagree or leave than #1 why in the name of common sense did we leave ACoC in the first place. If my new church ACNW/ANiC fails to recognize the history of mistakes made by the ACoC and WO and SSB are not the only ones than I for one and I hope Charles and others as well recognize that we don’t make the same mistake we made in our first Anglican church and that is to sit on our hands and just let it happen. Of course if Bishop Don and ANiC insist as you have than we have no choice. I don’t think that is the case. In fact agreeing to disagree for a period of time to allow cooler heads to prevail is common cause and sensible. However Bishop Don seems to indicate that no matter ANiC will eventually ordain Female Bishops. If this is true than agreeing to disagree is pointless.
I was not taking anything personally, I was trying to keep the tone of the discussion civil, which Charles and I have both managed to do, without your help, thanks.
Waiting for my answer to what question, exactly?
Ok – so you are fine with “agreeing to disagree” if the final decision is one that you agree with, but not ok with doing so if the final decision is one you disagree with? Seems to me that to agree to disagree means that we can live together despite our disagreements.
Sit on our hands and let what happen? If you have been following what has been going on in Canada, it ought to have been obvious from day one that women’s ordination to deacon and presbyter was a done deal (from the appointment of the Ven. Desiree Steadmen to the positions of aide to Bishop Don and territorial archdeacon, if nothing else.)
I ought to add, I don’t think I agree with having women bishops. However, if we do eventually conscerate a women bishop, I won’t leave over it. No church is perfect, and as David has said elsewhere, if my church falls short of a utopian “Anglican ideal”, if it remains Christian and recognizably Anglican I am content.
Stuck in Toronto [#73],
Speaking for myself, I voted to leave the dio. of Niagara for ANiC because I can no longer view the diocese as a Christian church – ANiC, I think is.
I don’t believe anyone here can say whether the ACNA will end up ordaining women bishops; they may well, but it would not make me regret joining since, even if ordaining a woman as a bishop is a mistake (and I am not entirely convinced that it is), that would not be enough to render the ACNA non-Christian. As has been said many times before, WO is a secondary issue.
“but Bishop Harvey said ANiC’s policy is that “any office that can be held by a man can be held by a woman.” However, he explained, that “for the sake of launching this province,” ANiC agreed to abide by the ACNA decision that no diocese would appoint woman to the episcopacy in the immediate future.”
FIrst off Kate I assume that the words “for the sake of launching this province” is another way of saying agree to disagree or the latest buzz word Dual Integrity. This says to me that it is a TEMPORARYNow try and stay with me girl I am in complete agreement with the Bishop’s statement above and I think it may even be true. My argument and fear for woman is not “can they” but “should they”
This brings me to my last question to you, it baffles me how you missed it
Sorry folks I hit the wrong button.
the Bishop’s words indicate to me that this is a temporary situation that in fact as far as ANic is concerned it’s going to happen just later than sooner.
Now to my former question that you failed to identify.
“Equality is either complimetarian or egalitarian in consideration of God’s Creation which is it Kate? ML #46 and I are waiting for your answer.”
Since I am in a questioning mood you said
“Sit on our hands and let what happen? If you have been following what has been going on in Canada, it ought to have been obvious from day one that women’s ordination to deacon and presbyter was a done deal (from the appointment of the Ven. Desiree Steadmen to the positions of aide to Bishop Don and territorial archdeacon, if nothing else.)”
My Impression from meeting these wonderful woman priests was “thank God there are a few like minded woman. My belief once ordained it should not be revoked. but never did I believe as a result that meant WO was a done deal. Let me assure you I have been following every step and nuance since the rig-a-morow began and the one constant theme that drew me was “it’s not just about SSB’s” The trouble goes back some say 40, some say 50, some even said 60 years. a wonderful example was the iceberg graph etc etc. Do you remember? well the issue of WO was front and center but because of its inflamitory as well as important it was moved from the front burner to the back one. But I NEVER thought it was going to be a done deal by my new church.
2000 years of consistant thinking without a hitch until 1978 ++Ted Scott with His Radical compassion decides the church was wrong, that Jesus should have had a woman apostle, that Adam really didn’t NAME Eve, Woman. That God really didn’t create woman as a help-mate, that woman were not equal and unique with natures and structures very different from man for different yet divine purposes, Hold on a sec. Was that really it! or was it more like the culture is changing and we have to change with it. either way it was a mistake. would we have the SSB issue if we had not given rise to priestesses and self described Feminist Bishops I for one do not. Do the math, it seems to me that a great majority of woman priests and bishops remained behind in both TEC and ACoC with a disproportionate few following Orthodoxy into the ACNA. This will all come out in the wash when the next great cultural shift occurs like the changing attitudes on abortion, both TEC and ACoC will trip over each other to get on board.
So one last question; if ssb’s were just the tip of the iceburg what were all those terrible things that brought us to realignment.
Stuck,
I doubt that you are going to get a better answer on WO than this thread.
Why not peruse it; it may not give the answer you want, but I doubt that a rehash of the question will either.
Thank you David, I have spent considerable time today reading your referenced thread. Obviously I should have been in there like the proverbial dirty shirt. unfortunately I was in BC caring for my sister over that period. For the most part it was far too “theological” for my limitations. For instance I believe understanding scripture comes from the light of the Holy Spirit and no other.
Kate if you and I were in your living room with coffee I am sure you would throw me out. I think the way you and I project rubs each of us the wrong way. this should not effect what we say but unfortunately human nature being what it is etc etc. Sola Scriptura-
Sola Christo = Sola LOVE this is the bottom line it is incarnate in my heart I believe it even now as emotional tears flow and I joyfully extend these things in me to you. Unfortunately this marvelous understanding is insufficient to break the bondage of fear that my Bishop’s words created. Because of this I must withdraw from the discussion. I am seeking personal council with someone in our church who in my opinion may be the best source of help. Herself a priest in good standing.
I pray God’s blessing upon all of you who seek the Way, Truth and Life that is our Lord Jesus Christ.
gary – (still stuck but working on it)