From the Telegraph-Journal:
A rift in the Anglican Church, whose long history in New Brunswick reaches back to the Loyalists, is fuelling the expansion of a new Anglican movement in the province.
The Anglican Network in Canada, a breakaway group from the Anglican Church of Canada, has established a church in Moncton and is setting up satellite congregations in Sussex, Miramichi and Saint John.
Rev. Don Hamilton, minister at the newly-established Christ the Redeemer Anglican Church, said in an interview Tuesday the network provides a safe haven for worshippers who are uncomfortable with the more worldly direction of modern religion.
“We can no longer follow the Anglican Church of Canada because of their increasingly unbiblical theology which we are witnessing in many ways – the moving away from the authority of scripture,” Hamilton said.
The establishment of the Anglican Network in Canada comes after years of fractious debate in the Anglican Church over the issue of sanctioning homosexual unions.
Although officially the church is still just discussing the thorny issue, several Anglican churches have gone ahead and performed same-sex marriages, infuriating theologically conservative congregations.
Hamilton said the church is playing games by insisting it is still debating the issue even though a number of churches are moving ahead with same-sex unions.
He said that, to him, the church’s stance on homosexuality was a sign that it had lost its direction.
“I am an Anglican, I was ordained as an Anglican priest and I value our Anglican heritage and I want to stay true to historic Anglican teaching and orthodoxy.”
No one from the Anglican Church in New Brunswick was available to comment on the issue Tuesday.
At the most recent General Synod – the national church’s highest governing body – delegates voted to simply keep talking about the same-sex issue.
Most Rev. Fred Hiltz, primate of the Canadian wing of the church, said most of Canada’s 640,000 Anglicans are not ready to take a stand.
“Now is not the time to force the issue,” Hiltz said after the Synod.
“We’re not ready for that kind of a step. We’ve gone down that road before and we’ve always ended up in a state of chaos.”
Bishop Charlie Masters, an Anglican priest for 30 years who now serves as national director of the Anglican Network in Canada, said the breakaway Anglican churches are off to a good start, including in New Brunswick.
He said that so far, the network has 37 churches across the country and several more in development, such as the satellite operations in New Brunswick.
“We attract 3,500 to 4,000 on a Sunday morning across the country,” he said. “It’s a good start.”
Masters said the adherents to the stricter faith don’t call themselves fundamentalists, but prefer the phrase “Biblically faithful.
“It’s a matter of direction,” he said.
“Whereas the Anglican Church has always seen the Bible as the authority and the basis on which we made decisions as to what we believe and how we live, there were signs that was becoming less prominent.
As a result, the direction was worrying for some of us. We felt that as a matter of conscience we couldn’t continue because there were no signs of reversing that trend.”
Both Masters and Hamilton said the Anglican network is reaching out to people of all faiths, not just disillusioned Anglicans.
“We have a job to do,” Masters said. “We’re not really looking back to see where we have come from. Our job is to present the good news of Jesus across Canada.”
Yes, I meant ACNA.
Going back to Warren (#10) – the Anglican prayer book and Archbishop Cranmer’s Homilies (among other Anglican formularies) were far more influenced by a guy named Martin Bucer, and he had a great deal of similarities with John Calvin’s theology. So, in a manner of speaking, you could say Anglicanism is more in line with Geneva. However, in later times, it moved back to a very slightly more Roman Catholic understanding in small parts of the service of The Lord’s Supper. Apart from that issue, it has much more in common with Geneva. In the 39 Articles of Religion (in the Anglican prayer book), the Lutheran understanding of the sacraments is rejected along with the Roman Catholic notion of transubstantiation. On justification by faith, both the Lutheran and Genevan positions are reflected in the articles (because of their very close association/their similarities).
OzAnglican (#52), thank you for the feedback. I recently completed a church history course at a local Bible Institute, but Anglicanism was barely discussed and Martin Bucer was only mentioned in passing.
Stuck [#43], it could be argued that the Church, not Jesus, has been true to the Fallen nature of creation: remember Genesis 3:16? Male domination is a result of the Fall.
Jesus was very affirming of women (as was Paul). If, in Christ, there is no Jew nor Greek, no slave nor free, no male and female, why does the gender bar remain when the other two have gone?
Hello Kate (42)
I have taken a look at
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Women_Service_Church.htm
as suggested by Greg (45). What I did see was an attempt to re-interpret 1 Timothy 2 so as to fit what I saw as a pre-established conclusion. This is the same type of re-interpretation that is being employed to justify the blessing of homosexual behaviours. I also saw that their was no mention what-so-ever of 1 Timothy 3, as though this passage had no bearing on the subject. So what am I to make of 1 Timothy 3 being completely ignored (perhaps deliberately)? Could it be that those in favour of woman ordination just simply do not have a response to this passage that could support their position (or at least undermine the position of those opposed to woman ordination)? Please keep in mind that we as Christians (and not just Anglicans) are by our Faith to interpret the Holy Bible in a manner that does not result in any contradictions. Therefore, although no one passage is superior, nor inferior, to any other passage, the issue of 1 Timothy 3 with its very gender specific language must be properly considered.
Might I refer you to
http://prydain.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/a-repost-what-is-anglicanism-by-the-rev-charles-erlandson/
If we are going to quote Gal 3:28 (neither male nor female) as support for WO then we are also going to have to use that to support SSB! However, a text out of context… the context of this text is that in Christ all are equally saved, nevertheless races and genders still remain and women, in my opinion, have far more important things to do in the Body of Christ than be “Priests”. But I suppose we are in the habit of ignoring the talents and characteristics inherent in the genders just as we seem to ignore the gifts given us by the Holy Spirit and we just plug the willing into positions for which they are not always suited, and to the Church’s detriment.
Why would the man risk his academic reputation by doing that? Why would you assume that’s what he is doing? This is one of the reasons I find the discussion of WO so incredibly frustrating – the assumption that people who are in favour are either politically motivated, or dishonest (pretending to submit themselves to God and to scripture). I get the distinct impression that you would say the same thing about any pro WO argument, simply because you disagree with it.
There are good biblical arguments both for and against WO. The same cannot be said of the justificaiton of homosexual behaviour. People who hold a different opinion than you are not automatically revisionists.
Regarding 1 Timothy 3 – how can that gender specific language possibly mean that only men can be deacons in light of the existence of Phoebe? Phoebe was a deacon. Yes, in many translations the word is rendered “servant”. Nevertheless, it is exactly the same Greek word that is translated “deacon” when it refers to men.
That doesn’t follow. You are comparing apples and oranges – deciding who can hold leadership in the church is a completely different issue than same sex blessings.
I would argue that to not allow people to take positions to which they have been called, simply because they are the wrong gender is also the the church’s detriment.
#55 The article that you referenced – the main point seems to be that “Tradition is authorative where it doesn’t contradict scripture”. This is not “real” Anglicanism. Article 34 of the 39 articles does not say that tradition is authoriatative –
That idea of capital T “tradition” as authoratative is spoken against in this article of faith. It is not an Anglican idea:
So, just because “that’s the way we’ve always done it” is not a good enough reason not to change, so long as the change doesn’t contradict God’s word.
Re Kate (57)
So the word in the original Greek has more than one meaning. This is nothing unusual. We have many words in English that have more than one meaning. Also, the word used to describe St. James as a “brother” of Jesus actually means “male relative” which could mean “brother” or “male cousin”. This is part of the reasons why the Roman Catholics can accept St. James as a male cousin of Jesus and retain the possibility of the life long virginity of Mary. But back to the topic at hand…
So it can be seen that sometimes the Greek word for Deacon means a servant of the Church (Lay and not Ordained), and sometimes means a Priest of the Church (Clergy and Ordained). Those in favour of woman ordination choose to interpret Phoebe as the later, while those against woman ordination choose to interpret Phoebe as the earlier. But either way we must interpret the passage that tells us of Phoebe so that we do not have any contradictions with the rest of God’s Holy Word. That we have 1 Timothy 3 specifically stating the Deacons (Priest) and Overseers (Bishops) are to be men forces us to interpret Phoebe as the earlier, for if we do otherwise we result in a Biblical contradiction (which must not happen).
Here is something else to take to heart. Romans 16:1-2 identifies Phoebe as a “servant of the Church” and not a “servant of God”. A “servant of the Church” is a Lay member, and only an ordained person may be a “servant of God”. And the following translations all identify Phoebe as a servant of the church: NIV, NASB, KJV, ESV, NKJV, KJ21, GNT, ASV, HCSB, NIRV, WYC, and NIVUK. Furthermore, she is indentified as a “representative” in the MSG version, and as a “helper” in the NCV, and WE versions (neither “representative” nor “helper” could be considered ordained). That there are so many translation of the Holy Bible that does not indicate any Ordination of Phoebe is rather indicative that she was not ordained. Consequently, any attempt to hold Phoebe as a justification for woman ordination is an incredibly weak argument. But it seems to be the only argument with any Biblical basis that is ever offered.
I also recommend the following as good reading:
http://jesus-messiah.com/w-preach/wp-nt-6.html
#58 And who decides whether someone is called? and called by whom?
The following is from a book edited by Alister McGrath and J I Packer. The article itself is written by Christopher Wright.
Hello AMP
In Wright’s commentary he says this about the Bishop’s in Timothy 3.
“Paul refers to the Bishop throughout as a man. My reading of the rest of the New Testament inclines me to think that this is more because that’s how Greek grammar normally refers to both genders together, and that is because in the very early days of the church the leaders of most communities were probably men. I don’t see it as disbarring women from this particular ministry and vocation.”
I myself am not knowledgeable enough that I would want to argue the point one way or the other but it seems to me that you have taken a position that is opposite to N T Wright, Christopher Wright, Alister McGrath and J I Packer. These 4 men are all solidly orthodox. You might want to think, read and pray about your views on the issue as it is an important one. (The same holds true of course for all of us.) It isn’t about equality of genders it is about discerning God’s will.
Blessings
Greg
How exactly can that be seen? I think you are jumping to a conclusion.
The NIV and the ESV both footnote servant “or deacon”.
#62 Well, that’s for the ordination discernment process to sort out. I’m confident that ANiC is taking that process seriously.
#61 The article seems to me to be doing exactly what you accused NT Wright of doing.
That fact that we see that Phoebe was a deacon of the church forces us to interpret 1 Timothy 3 as not prohibiting women to be deacons or bishops, for if we do otherwise we result in a Biblical contradiction (which must not happen).
You see, the passages can be interpreted either way.
It seems to me that John Stott favours WO, while J. I. Packer opposes it, unless they have changed their positions recently. Can we agree to disagree in our church?
When I look at 1 Timothy 3 I see statements indicating that Priests and Bishops are:
To be the husband of but one wife
Ruling their houses and their children well
Their wives not slanderous or gossipers
If it were the intention of God (speaking through this passage) that women also be allowed to be Priests and Bishops than why is the language so gender specific? Surely it could have been worded to indicate that the person should be married only once and not have more than one spouse. Also, it seems to me that the things that are mentioned in this passage give a clear indication of the gender of the Priests and Bishops. Any attempt to apply a cultural context to this passage that results in an interpretation that says woman ordination is ok is dangerous. It smacks of the exact same type of tactics that are currently being employed by those in favour of blessing homosexual behaviour. The Word of God was written for all people of all places and of all times. Therefore any cultural context does not really apply, for that would be our attempting to change God into something we like. We should be trying to change ourselves so that we move closer to God.
Hello Michael (68)
Agreeing to dissagree is not really a viable option. For if we are doing something wrong, the longer we wait to correct the mistake the harder it will be to correct.
It is very similar to the homosexual blessing issue. With serveral Diocese in the ACoC now engaged in this activity, the longer it goes on the more entrenched it becomes, and the risk of it spreadinig to other Dioceses increases. Thus the importance that this error be corrected, and it is one of the reasons for the creation of ACNA and ANiC. Likewise the issue with woman ordination. The longer it goes on the harder it will be to end. Furthermore, if woman ordination is an error than what are the consequences. Are the marriages that they perform true? What about the Confessions that they hear? Is the Holy Communion they administer real? Etc.
Hi #70: If you are right in what you are saying, I fear for the future of ACNA because there are female clergy in some of the dioceses.
Not to take sides here (I must admit that my personal preference is for male clergy), but must we then say there should be no unmarried priests or bishops?
AMP,
I find your use of “we” in comment 70 a little odd, since you aren’t a member of an ANiC church.
See comment 64. Are you actually reading the thread before you post? Have you read the older thread I referenced?
Of course they are. From the 39 Articles:
And, before you tell me that the article says that only men can be presbyters, Article 19, of the church says that the visible church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men… that obviously includes women, too.
No, we should be allowing God to change us, and He does use His word to do that. However, any attempt to interpret scripture without understanding the cultural context in which it is written is dangerous, because it leads to misunderstanding and misapplication.
WO most certainly is an “agree to disagree” issue, because good scriptural arguments can be made on either side. The same cannot be said of same sex blessings, despite AMP’s attempts to conflate the two.
To clarify my last paragraph in comment 73 – I am not talking about putting today’s culture over God’s word written. I am talking about understanding the cultural context in which His word was written.
My objection to all of this is the use of the word ANGLICAN in the name of this group. If they are not part of the world wide Anglican Communion then they should not be using the word in their name.
Carl,
ANiC is part of the ACNA which is recognised by a growing number of Anglican primates and leaders worldwide. In what sense is it “not part of the worldwide Anglican Communion”?
Hello Carl (76),
I would go so far as to say that ACNA, including its member Diocese of ANiC, is more Anglican that the ACoC!
1. The majority of the Provinces of the WAC recognize ACNA and have delared themselves to be in Communion with ACNA.
2. The majority of Provinces in the WAC have publically declared their Communion with the ACoC to be either impared or broken.
3. Theoligically, the ACNA has more in common with the other Provinces of the WAC than does the ACoC.
With the way things are progressing, it is only a matter of time until both the ACoC and TEC are out of the WAC, and the ACNA is in. I wonder. When that day comes, will you be calling for the ACoC to remove the word Anglican form its name?
54Gordon Arthur
“Stuck [#43], it could be argued that the Church, not Jesus, has been true to the Fallen nature of creation: remember Genesis 3:16? Male domination is a result of the Fall.
Jesus was very affirming of women (as was Paul). If, in Christ, there is no Jew nor Greek, no slave nor free, no male and female, why does the gender bar remain when the other two have gone?”
1. My #43 had nothing to do with “Male domination” which in fact was a God Given curse. Which to all intents and purposes has the potential of not existing with the advent of Christ Jesus and the attendent reconcilliation between Man and the Father. In fact my #43 was referring to pre-fall circumstances as described fully in Genesis 2.
2. “In Christ” there is no male and female. However in man, (until the end of the age) all three still exist. I have always contended that; “and become one flesh” (last verse Gen 2.) does in fact mean exactly what it says and “Man”, [both male and female] (Gen.1) return to their original state . “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”
Please note in the KJV the word “Therefore” beginning verse 24 of CHP 2 this is also described as being “For this reason” that single word connects all the dots (well for me anyway).
I have in the past spoken of my belief that the purpose of woman as stated in Gen. 2 is of far greater importance to God’s unfolding creation than the post modern feminist attitude of egalitarian equality. This attitude combined with economic pressure has created a very large hole in the “family unit”. Our young people have lost touch with reality and live in a fearful world of fantasy, lack of personal identity, and growing mental illness. This can be directly attributable to the lack of sufficient parenting.
I’m not say woman can’t be firefighters, soldiers, priests, or garbage collectors, I’m saying they shouldn’t be.