From Anglican Mainstream:
ANGLO- CATHOLIC AND EVANGELICAL GENERAL SYNOD MEMBERS SEEK ‘URGENT’ MEETING WITH ARCHBISHOPS FOLLOWING THIS AFTERNOON’S DEBATE ON WOMEN BISHOPS
ANGLO-CATHOLIC and Evangelical members of the Church of England’s General Synod, meeting in York this weekend, have asked for an “urgent” meeting following Synod’s defeat of the Archbishops’ amendment on the Measure which would allow Women to be Bishops in the Church of England.
The Archbishops put forward an unprecedented amendment to the Women Bishops Revision Committee’s recommendations , which they felt would help maintain unity within the church and be pastorally sensitive to those who, from theological and conscience issues, cannot accept the Episcopal ministry of women.
Despite a majority of synod voting FOR the Archbishops’’ amendment, it failed on a “procedural device” of requiring a two-thirds majority in all three houses: Bishops, clergy and laity. In the House of Clergy, the vote was split 50/50.
The subsequent crisis in the CofE, and its Synodical and Episcopal leadership has led senior Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical leaders this evening to request an urgent meeting with both Archbishops to discuss the matter before Synod resumes its Women Bishop debates on the issue on Monday morning.
In the meantime, leaders of the two groups within the CofE are asking parishes to pray earnestly this weekend for grace and wisdom for the General Synod as they seek God’s will for His church.
According to Anglican Mainstream:
Seems as if Synod is adopting a slash and burn mentality in this regard. For me, that’s the issue; there’s got to be something wrong with a mentality that is all about “rights”, and nothing about humility or treating one another in love. Certainly a servant heart and spirit is sadly lacking. As a result, the fabric of communion gets torn some more.
If in the end they are not allowed to have female Bishops than the authority(?) for female Priests should be questioned.
The elephant shrugged.
This all stikes me as just so much hypocrisy. The revisionists are very demanding of “tolerance” and “inclusiveness” for the things that they want. But are completely unwilling to even consider a small measure of “tolerance” and “inclusiveness” for those who cannot go along with the revisionists agenda.
Seems to me the “battle cry” of the revisionists is “I want, I want, I want”. It shoud be “May God’s Will be done, on Earth, as it is in Heavan”, even when God’s Will is different from their own.
I think Stuck is right; it does seem contradictory to have female clergy but only up to a certain rank. All-or-nothng does appear to be a more logical approach.
I personally think that what an individual priest preaches and believes should be more important than their gender. A rule like that would have disqualified the disastrous leadership of John Spong (who last time I checked was a man).
There is an argument that the priestly ministry is really the
Ministry of the Bishop; under that schema, you can argue for the
“This far and no further”
Anglican theology has traditionally maintained that anyone who can be a priest can also, in principle, be a bishop, so this is simply a logical consequence of the decision in 1992 to ordain women as priests. The idea that episcopal orders are different in kind from priestly orders is much more characteristic of Rome.
Henry I have been taught and have tried to maintain the scriptural direction of holding oneself in subjection to those in authority over them in the church. I have all my life recognized that the first echelon of that authority is the parish priest. If what you are suggesting has credence than I would like to know more as this would definately change my scale of balance toward an acceptance of woman priests in the ANiC. So long as they were not actresses.
My two cents worth…
As I understand things:
1. It is the Bishop who is a present day Apostle in that it is the Bishop who is a direct successor of the Apostles
2. Priestly Ordination is a “partial” ordination. The “completion” of the ordination (if I can use that word here) is when the person becomes a Bishop and part of the Episcopate.
3. Priest are “licensed” by a Bishop to Minister on behalf of the Bishop.
I will be the fist to admit that I may not be entirely correct on any of these points, and so would like constructive feedback to help me be more fully understanding of the position of Priest vis-a-vis a Bishop.
AMP [#8], I can’t find anything in the BCP Ordinal or the Thirty-Nine Articles to support your second point.
AMP (#8), I’m with Gordon (#9). Your theology owes much more to Roman Catholicism’s (and hence “Anglo Catholic”) view of ‘apostolic succession’ wrongly derived from Matthew 16 (Jesus saying ‘on this rock, I will build my church’). Further, it relies on the unscriptural (again Roman Catholic) doctrine of a change of a person’s nature when ordination takes place – that a person’s being changes when that person is ordained as a deacon, then changes again when priested, then changes again when ordained Bishop. It owes more to scholasticism’s reliance on Aristotelean thought, than to the pages of Scripture. However, a bishop in the Anglican Church ordinal is the ‘overseer’ (episkope in Greek) of priests, deacons, and churches under their care. It’s interesting that in our “Ordination of Bishops” service, the Archbishop charges the bishop elect, “Be to the flock of Christ a shepherd, and not a wolf”! I suspect that line should read in many ACoC provinces’ services, “Be to the flock of Christ a wolf, not a shepherd”.
A further point for AMP – in reformed theology (hence, the theology of BCP, 39 Articles, and ordinal) a bishop, priest, or deacon is a “successor” to the Apostles, not by dint of a “chain of laying on of hands” from Peter to the current bishop/pope, but by dint of the gospel they preach. They are “apostolic” insofar as they preach the pure apostolic gospel. To my knowledge, the office of “Apostle” is not one used in the Anglican church, since only those C1st foundational Apostles are rightly “Apostles” in the sense intended by the majority the New Testament’s usage of “Apostle” (noting that ‘apostle’ not only defines an office in NT times, but also more broadly means ‘sent one’).
OZ; as far as I know the “Laying on of hands” began as a means of Holy Spirit Empowerment. So I agree that Apostolic succession has nothing to do with ascension to the episcopate. Is it possible that measuring ones “authority” through lineage to the apostles is a vain thing? Is it also possible that in doing so the church has weakened to the point of dismissal what should have been a natural occurance; that being the continued succession of relationship (empowerment) with the Holy Spirit through the Laying on of hands? As is spoken to candidates at their confirmation in the BCP ie:
“Then all of them in order kneeling before the Bishop, he shall lay his hand upon the head of every one severally, saying:
DEFEND, O Lord, this thy Servant with thy heavenly grace, that he may continue thine for ever; and daily increase in thy Holy Spirit, more and more, until he come unto thy everlasting kingdom. Amen.
The point I wish to make is that I have spoken to dozens of my peers both lay and ordained – I have yet to meet one that felt empowered by the Holy Spirit at their Confirmation. Unfortunately I have only witnessed one Confirmation service in the past 20 years and the portions re. the Holy Spirit were eliminated entirely. This was just two years ago.
I was empowered by the Holy Spirit at my confirmation, but then I was confirmed by a bishop (Graham Dow, then Bishop of Willingdon, now Bishop of Carlisle) who called down the Holy Spirit on the candidates and then waited until He came.
On checking, I find that Graham retired last year.l
Getting back to my post (8) and specifically point 1…
I have done some very quick online referrencing (have a hard time considering the internet to be real “research”) and found these two websites.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_succession#Anglican_Communion
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Apostolic_Succession#The_Anglican_Communion
I am already aware that wikipedia is not considered the most reliable source of information, but the newworldencyclopedia website repeats almost verbatum what wikipedia said.
Seems to me that the Anglican view on Apostolic Succession is largely influenced by which end of the Anglican Spectrum a person happens to be at. Those of the “Protestant” end having a view expressed by OzAnglican (11). Those of the “Catholic” end having a view more in line with the Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox.
Additionally, it seems that a Biblical argument can be made for either position.
Myself, being at the Catholic end of the Anglican Spectrum, and a supporter of Ecumenism and Christian (re)unification, feel that as the world’s two largest Christian denominations have a belief in Apostolic Succession, that we Anglicans should also endeavour to, as much as possible, adhere to this practice and move our beliefs and doctrine in this direction.
I’m sad that pastoral provision was turned down. #8 (2) – There are no “partial” ordinations. Yes, in the RC church, ordinations are seen as step-ladder, i.e. deacon, priest, bishop. The ACoC has recovered what was in practice in the early Centuries. Bishop, priest, deacons (vocational vs. transitional) are seen as “equal” orders with different functions in serving the Church. The Bishop is overseer (and has episcopal duties like confirmations) because he cannot be present in every parish every Sunday so has delegated the responsibility to the Presbyter (who has priestly duties like celebrating Holy Communion). The Deacon brings the concerns of the world back to the parish. All stem from baptismal ministry. #12 – I was “strangely warmed” at my confirmation.
AMPisAnglican (#15), I would like to think that a “Biblical argument” would be the starting point rather than something that would be looked to additionally. What is the biblical argument for apostolic sucession by the way? I’m sure the staff at the Bible Institute where I have taken a few courses would say there is none.
Oz [##10-11], AMP [#15] and Warren [#16], you might like to have a look at W.D. Davies and D.C. Allison’s commentary on Matthew. They discuss all the options for interpreting Matthew 17, and come to the conclusion that Peter was neither the first bishop in an Apostolic Succession (Catholic) nor just a representative Apostle (Protestant), but that he played a unique role in founding the Church parallel to the role Abraham played in founding Israel.
As to Biblical arguments for Apostolic Succession, the only relevant passage I can find is Acts 2:42, which states that the believers “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers”, which seems to support the Protestant view that Churches are apostolic when they teach as the Apostles did.
Be it for the purpose of authority or empowerment Apostolic Succession does tie us to our church roots. It is there that we will find the purist way of Church operation. I pray that as this new/old ORTHODOX anglcanism emerges it will look back far enough to see what we’ve been missing. In doing so it is my belief that slewfoot will find himself powerless against Her.
“oops there goes another kilowatt”
#13 Brother Gordon – wow! may I ask in your prepatory Catachism was there teaching, praying, and expectation of your empowerment experience? Was this a common thing or unique to your Bishop?
Stuck [#19], when I was confirmed, after moving from a Presbyterian Church to the Church of England at the age of 35, I was already working on a Ph.D. in theology. I was baptised on profession of faith into an offshoot of the Scotch Baptists at the age of 11.
My confirmation preparation consisted in one meeting with the rector, who said it was the easiest he’d ever done, since I knew more about the subject than he did (I’m not convinced that’s true).
Graham Dow was something of an exception, however.
Thanks for sharing Gordon, one last question if I may. What is your observation of our current and historical relationship with the Holy Spirit? Do you think that this empowerment of the Holy Spirit that we have been speaking of has degenerated? By that I mean shifted from a faith based reality of our control, as it was in the early Church. To a Spirtual perception that has become a kind of human hands off type of blessing?
OK brother I don’t count well
… I probably have many more questions just waiting. Thank you Sir.
I think a lot of people have stopped believing the Holy Spirit can be active in their lives. I can think of quite a few who would be stunned if He interrupted Morning Prayer, for example. However, I have also seen (and experienced) plenty of evidence that the Spirit is available to those who are open to receive Him. Our perception may have changed: the Spirit hasn’t.
I’m not sure this entirely answers your question, but then I’m not entirely clear what the last two sentences in your first paragraph mean.
The Holy Spirit is very much in this world. A few years ago, while sitting in Church waiting for the Worship Service to begin I experienced a moment of tranquility. The noise and distractions of this world just simply faded away. Then, in this clarity, I became aware of His presence. It was wonderful, and it brought me to tears. For during this encounter He made it known to me that even though I have committed some of the worse sins (including the one that forgiveness might not be granted) that He still loves me.
May the Grace of God be with us all.
Amp; I to worried that I had committed the mysterious “unforgivable Sin”. I have been brought to an understanding by the wisdom of my betters as well as a spiritual confirmation by the Holy Spirit. It is simply this; If I am at all concerned about having committed this sin than in fact my concern proves that I have not. the following is one of the references
http://ministries.tliquest.net/theology/apocryphas/nt/didache.htm
Gordon; I live a confusing life. Sorry.
It seems to me that the Holy Spirit played a continuous and fully active role in the early Church particularly in the area or should I say action of the Laying on on Hands. This is what I meant by a “faith based reality of our control”. Not withstanding Amp’s experience in #23 and countless others including manifestations of my own, I perceive that our current condition as a church has long shifted away from sufficient faith to experience the fullness of the empowerment of the Holy Spirit particularly in that portion of “apostolic succession”, again, The giving and receiving of that empowerment by the episcopal act of the Laying on of Hands. I believe this would throw the doors wide open to understanding and acting upon the “Gifts of the Spirit” instead of our tippy-toe attitude on this subject. ( I do admit it has become a subject slowly).
I’m not sure if this has been at all helpful. I took a moment to pray and this has come to mind.
The GRACE of our Lord Jesus is a real tangible thing of substance
The LOVE of God is also real and tangible with much evidence.
The FELLOWSHIP of the Holy Spirit – is this still real and tangible as it was in the early church or has it become limited?
In my judgement, the only unforgiveable sin is refusing forgiveness.
Stuck [#26], I think you’re right that there was more expectation that the Spirit would come through the laying on of hands in ordination in the early Church than there is now. However, I also sense a loss of confidence and nerve in certain sections of the Church, which undoubtedly makes it more difficult for those affected to receive the Spirit.
Just a note Gordon the Laying on of hands was not limited to “ordination” in the apostolic church it was a gift freely given to all who would receive it. This ministry was passed on to the successors of the apostles who continued in the manner of Christ’s mandate. However (and I’m not a historian) somewhere between this time and the time of the “Councils” this practice seemed to fade considerably.
I know of two post-modern examples of this, Your’s and Rev. Nick Gumbels of ALPHA fame. I have no doubt there are many many more.
I look and pray for the day when the calling, waiting, and the laying on of hands for empowerment becomes a natural consequence of our life in the church particularly in our life catachism and our “coming of age” service of confirmation. In short, replacing the symbolism with like-minded, faith based, reality.