Bishop Don Harveys Charge

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.

This entry was posted in Anglican Network in Canada. Bookmark the permalink.

150 Responses to Bishop Don Harveys Charge

  1. Liz says:

    Thanks, Pete, for being there for all of us. You are a faithful servant to us and to the Lord.
    Blessings,
    Liz

  2. Gerry O'Brien, SJTE, Topsail, Nfld. says:

    Yes Peter, Thank You and God Bless you for this website ministry. Travel safely home everyone and God Bless those two Parishes in British Columbia and their Rectors for the stand they have taken and the courage. Our prayers will be with all of you daily for we know that the enemy will indeed be prowling like a roaring lion.
    Thank You to Bishops Don and Malcolm for leading the faithful and a special thank you to New Archdeacon Charlie Masters new Prolocutor, Rev. George Sinclair. Both of you have taken a lot of heat already, hopefully the Primate of the ACC will be more attuned to Christian Charity than his peer in the USA TEC.

  3. Gerry O'Brien, SJTE, Topsail, Nfld. says:

    Yes Peter, Thank You and God Bless you for this website ministry. Travel safely home everyone and God Bless those two Parishes in British Columbia and their Rectors for the stand they have taken and the courage. Our prayers will be with all of you daily for we know that the enemy will indeed be prowling like a roaring lion.
    Thank You to Bishops Don and Malcolm for leading the faithful and a special thank you to New Archdeacon Charlie Masters new Prolocutor, Rev. George Sinclair. Both of you have taken a lot of heat already, hopefully the Primate of the ACC will be more attuned to Christian Charity than his peer in the USA TEC.

  4. Gerry O'Brien, SJTE, Topsail, Nfld. says:

    Yes Peter, Thank You and God Bless you for this website ministry. Travel safely home everyone and God Bless those two Parishes in British Columbia and their Rectors for the stand they have taken and the courage. Our prayers will be with all of you daily for we know that the enemy will indeed be prowling like a roaring lion.
    Thank You to Bishops Don and Malcolm for leading the faithful and a special thank you to New Archdeacon Charlie Masters new Prolocutor, Rev. George Sinclair. Both of you have taken a lot of heat already, hopefully the Primate of the ACC will be more attuned to Christian Charity than his peer in the USA TEC.

  5. Wendy says:

    Peter,
    In one of your previous Blogs I read the Charlie Masters has a App
    With His Bishop next week
    I keep getting a message that we must pray for Charlie Masters asking for God’s protection for him at this time

    Thank you for your faithful reporting
    It is much appreciated

  6. Michael says:

    That’s: Archie Pell and Sean Love

  7. Pauline says:

    Wendy – I read in the Anglican Journal article that Bishop Spence wishes to meet with Charlie on November 27th. That would be Tuesday, but it doesn’t say what time.

  8. Wendy says:

    Pauline

    I don’t know the time but I really feel we need to Pray for Charlie

  9. Pauline says:

    Will do Wendy – will hold them all up for protection and especially for Charlie on Tuesday and Bishop Harvey next weekend when he ordains the first two Deacons.

  10. obituary says:

    actually it’s Bishop Spence that needs the prayers.

  11. Pauline says:

    Obituary – that’s a given, but some days it is harder to pray than others.

  12. Mark 10:11-12 says:

    I’m glad that we have a Biblically faithful church. I know that the Network will uphold the biblical teaching on marriage and divorce. I would assume them that the Network would not permit the remarriage of divorced persons in the Church since it is forbidden by Christ himself. Along with not permitting leadership positions for those who are living in a sinful common law relationships.

  13. obituary says:

    Hmmm, methinks “Biblically faithful” does not jibe with women’s ordination. I’d say there has been a grave miscalculation by the Network in reaching out to disgruntled Anglicans who are staying away from the Anglican Church of Canada due to this issue. They may have people who accept women’s ordination with them, but they have seriously missed the boat by not going back to solid ground.

  14. Drumroll says:

    No’s 10 and 12 above seem to be looking to point fingers or nit-pick. I wonder where this will lead?

  15. Drumroll says:

    sorry, meant No’s 10 and 11

  16. Sue says:

    I am getting mixed messages. On the one hand I thought that Bishop Harvey had said that he accepted women’s ordination. Please correct me if I am wrong. On the other hand Rev. Short has preached against teaching leadership for women in the church. I imagine that he will not fellowship with ordained women.

    This puts enormous strain on relations unless all discussion on this topic is withheld until after the fact. Could you clarify? I also wonder if those who are divorced because of abandonment or partner abuse will be denied remarriage. Are these things well understood by those making a commitment to the Network?

  17. Sue says:

    What I meant is that the strain on this topic will be delayed, but it will arise.

  18. Michael says:

    As I’ve been saying, I respect Bp. Harvey’s intention in saying that the Network will respect those with differences of opinion on women’s ordination. I’m just wondering if it’s easier said than done. Those clergy I know who do not accept women’s ordination do not merely disagree with it: they categorically do not recognize female priests as being ordained. And they are not looking for respect first and foremost; what they are most concerned with is having a church structure where they can pass on the Apostolic faith, as they understand it, to the next generation, and to preserve the Apostolic Succession. I think that, for the sake of clarity, it would be good to know exactly what the Network means when it says that it will respect differences of opinion on this matter, just so everyone knows what they’re jumping into.

  19. Pingback: Gentle Wisdom » A Complementarian in Canada

  20. Mark 10:11-12 says:

    I don’t understand how upholding the Biblically faithful model of marriage and divorce can be called nit-picking? It is very clear from the lips of our Lord that the remarriage of divorced persons is a sin. Now that we have a Biblically faithful Anglican Network which upholds Orthodoxy, it should be quite clear that no Network clergy will be allowed to officiate at the remarriage of divorced persons.

  21. Chris Collin says:

    I wonder if we are getting off track a bit here.

    As I understand it, the whole point of Essentials is for Anglicans to remain biblically faithful. Hence, while the ACC has been drifting in several ways, the straw that broke the camel’s back was the same-sex issue, on which Scripture seems resonably (albeit argueably to some) clear.

    Women’s ordination is another matter entirely! IMHO, there is nothing in Scripture to suggest that women may not serve as priests etc. In fact, women in ministry are mentioned in the bible (at least as deacons), and there are early writings that also speak of women in ministry. In 2002, one of my fellow students at Saint Paul University, and a female postulant, was researching early church women leaders for a paper she was writing in Church History. She was delighted to hear me report a news article I had seen regarding the uncovering of a tomb in Carthage of an early Christian bishop – who was female. This information she added to the wealth of sources she found elsewhere.

    Of course, being good Anglicans, we do stand on Tradition as well as Scripture, and it has only been 65 years or so since the first female Anglican priest was ordained. And we are still discussing it. How many Anglicans does it take to change a lightbulb again? 🙂

  22. Orthodox police says:

    As an orthodox church we must not:
    1. Bless sinful unions or allow for homosexual clergy
    2. Ordain women as priests or bishops
    3. Remarry those who are divorced, expect for unfaithfulness (the one exception allowed by our Lord)
    These are clear in scripture. The Catholics recognize as much.

  23. Peter says:

    I think sometimes it is easy to consider that everything that has happened in the last 40 years is necessarily bad, but surely it is better to consider all cases on their merits?

    Much has been made of the benefits of tradition over ‘private interpretation’, but neither are free from the potential of error.

    All the same, are there tensions over this – yes. However if it was not this it would be something else. I think the good thing going forward will be that we can embrace that difference in charity, and perhaps give something of the lie to the charge that we are super-pure doctrinal fundamentalists!

    Lets concentrate on the new thing God is bringing to birth. If there was one sense I got from the conference , it was the purpose, unity and vision that was there, the breath of Gods Spirit over us. I’d counsel concentrating on the new thing, knowing that we are not going to be perfect, but trusting in God to lead us into all truth – where we are wrong correcting us, where we are right strengthening us, and bearing with each other in charity. For, I do believe God is doing a new thing!

  24. Orthodox police says:

    21 Peter, you sound like Ingham.

  25. Comfortable Words says:

    Isn’t the above conversation just evidence of the problems with divisions in the church? The ANiC is only just getting its footing and already I see subgroups, people with different ideas of orthodoxy and biblical faith. Where does it stop? What’s next, the ANiANiC? At some point we have to realize that our divisions defeat our mission in the world and that unity in diversity must triumph. Perhaps then our witness and our gospel will actually jive.

  26. Pauline says:

    Peter – I agree.

  27. Orthodox police says:

    Our gospel cannot diverge from what the Word of God teaches. This is what the ‘progressives’ do; this is the work of Satan. This is our opportunity to regain the losses, the compromises, that have already been made. Now is the Day of the Lord.

  28. David K says:

    Who can out orthodox whom? Enjoy your new church.

  29. Mark 10:11-12 says:

    I thought the reason we left the ACC was because it was Biblically unfaithful? Now we are picking and choosing Scripture in our new Network? Either we are “Full Gospel” or we are simply just another verison of the ACC. Now is the time…choose this day whom you will serve. If we are building upon the solid rock that is Christ, let us return to our roots! No remarriage of divorced persons. No women priests or bishops. That is who real orthodox Anglicans are…not just some group that opposes the gay marriage!

  30. Orthodox police says:

    27 Mark, well spoken. “Full Gospel” or no gospel. We must pick up our cross once again.

  31. Peter says:

    I shall try to sound less like Ingham in the future 😉

  32. Wendy says:

    Peter,

    I agree with you

    On another note if you can log on to the Edmonton Diocese Web Page http://www.anglican diocese of edmonton.com and click on the our Bishops Pastoral Letter to be read tomorrow
    I would like to hear your comments on that.

    I am really annoyed at her

    Please note this will be her final letter in the diocese as she is leaving for Ontario

    Wendy

  33. Peter says:

    I read it, it is here: http://edmonton.anglican.org/pdf/Pastoral%20Letter%20November.pdf

    One initial comment that comes to mind is that if the Bishop of Edmonton had not voted as she had, SSB would not have been declared as not in conflict with core doctrine. Perhaps it would have made little difference in practice, however she cannot be held as an uninvolved party in this affair.

  34. Peter says:

    Also, there is a ‘moral equivalency’ argument that appears to be a little ‘ivory tower’ to be honest. The reality on the ground is that we are not ‘business as usual’, there is a war on for the life and soul of the church.

    Also saying that adequate pastoral provision has been made doesn’t make it so, especially when the potential recipients do not appear to agree.

    All that said, it may be somewhat moot at the end of this month?

  35. Wendy says:

    Peter.

    Thank you
    I tried to send her a e-mail it came back as undeliverable in it I said
    The House of Bishops did nothing when Bishop Ingram started all this. I belive if they had perhaps the ACC would not be in the mess they are now.

    I had a few tears in my eyes when I read the Bishop Harding had joined Bishop Harvey

  36. Wendy says:

    Peter,

    I also meant to say God Bless them for standing up for the
    Gospel of Jesus Christ

    God Bless

  37. Sue says:

    I guess I am baffled at the statement,

    Clarification on WO: To be clear, women have same status as men in the churches of the Network. We will respect differences of opinion.

    If there is going to be open opposition to the ordination of women, then women don’t have the same status as men. Will this be made clarified?

  38. Pauline says:

    I suggest that if people have any questions about anything including WO that they contact the new Chancellor, Cheryl Chang, who I am sure would be able to answer any questions to your satisfaction.

    PS I can’t find anything anywhere in the New Testament about ordaining anyone.

  39. Orthodox police says:

    36 Pauline:

    11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

    12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

    13For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

    14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

    15Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

    QED

  40. Orthodox police says:

    1 Timothy 2:11-15

  41. Pauline says:

    Orthodox Police (the name says it all)
    I’m glad I am not in your Church. Whoa! I’m outta here.

  42. joyce says:

    comment on wendys #33, a good point and where were the Bishops response when Bishop Pike (quite a ways back) and Bishop Spong with his 12 thesis?? . they are quick with their pastoral letters to the parishes now but where have they been when our church seems to listen to the Spongs views rather than people like J I Packer and CS Lewis?? The Primate of the Episcopal church (USA)seems to be a great fan of Spong, and according to what she preaches and teaches is a follower of the greatest heresies of the centuries. There is nothing new in all of that . Just recycled un truth.

  43. Michael says:

    Dear Pauline (39),

    If that is your immediate reaction to a quote from St. Paul, the quesion is not whether you are in the same church as “Orthodox Police”, but whether you want to be in the same church as the Apostles or not.

    There are various ways that this passage has been interpreted, and this is something that the church is still struggling to come to grips with. However, we don’t have the option of simply ignoring such texts.

    Whatever people might say, there are statements made in the New Testament that can be read as speaking against the ordination of women. Bishops and deacons are supposed to be the “husband of one wife”, for one thing. Some see it as highly inconsistent for the church to take statements that blatantly forbid homosexual acts, and to take them literally, while reinterpreting passages that mandate male clergy, or forbid women from having authority in the church.

    At the end of the day, the authority of the Bible and of the Church is a bigger question than any of us. It is not at all my place to suggest where a discussion on these passages will lead, but any church that starts off claiming biblical authority as its basis must be willing to have that discussion.

  44. michael says:

    It is possible that all who have read the statement “What type of Church will we be” can easily understand one thing:
    They really have not got all their ducks lined up here!
    They mention that this “church” will uphold the Ordinal and Preface…I urge everyone right at this minute to read the Preface to the Ordinal, check one or check all since 1549…NOT once is the word “female” mentioned as a slim possibility as being a candidate for ordination. If they say they will remain faithful to the Ordinal and Preface, then this discussion of female “ordination” is totally out of sync with what they(the ANiC) are trying to get congregations/clergy to buy into…
    This is nothing more than another schism of a fractious schism already in place…who needs more mud in their water?
    I still remain Independent and loving my Saviour!

  45. PhilV says:

    Poke holes all you want.
    Never the less, there was a unity in Christ and in the Holy Spirit at the conference that was undeniable. God is doing a new thing. Praise the Lord!

  46. Mark, there is an Anglican Catholic church in Canada. I expect that the vast majority of folks who feel as you do have moved there.

    I also don’t recall David Short preaching against women in leadership at the conference – am I mistaken on this?

  47. Mark, there is an Anglican Catholic church in Canada. I expect that the vast majority of folks who feel as you do have moved there.

    I also don’t recall David Short preaching against women in leadership at the conference – am I mistaken on this?

  48. Mark, there is an Anglican Catholic church in Canada. I expect that the vast majority of folks who feel as you do have moved there.

    I also don’t recall David Short preaching against women in leadership at the conference – am I mistaken on this?

  49. Orthodox police: I recomend to you a book called “Why Not Women?” (can’t remember the author at the moment). Their discussion of that portion of scripture says that “a woman” was a particular woman who was teaching falsely. And Pauline? Your #39 comment is right on the mark.

  50. Orthodox police: I recomend to you a book called “Why Not Women?” (can’t remember the author at the moment). Their discussion of that portion of scripture says that “a woman” was a particular woman who was teaching falsely. And Pauline? Your #39 comment is right on the mark.

  51. Orthodox police: I recomend to you a book called “Why Not Women?” (can’t remember the author at the moment). Their discussion of that portion of scripture says that “a woman” was a particular woman who was teaching falsely. And Pauline? Your #39 comment is right on the mark.

  52. obituary says:

    I hope Drumroll #12 has his answer about “I wonder where this will lead?” For me I must say these comments have been very informative!

  53. Orthodox police says:

    Mrs Falstaff (45), there are ‘progressive’ interpretations on those passages. They are just as pleading as with homosexuality. God’s word is clear. Neither the creeds nor the thirty-nine articles advocate women priests or bishops, though the ACoC does…and that’s the problem.

  54. Mark 10:11-12 says:

    Mrs. Falstaff, are you saying that I am not welcome in the new Network because I uphold the Biblical standards concerning marriage and divorce? It seems that this new “church” that I had hoped would bring some resolution to the “crisis” in the Anglican Communion is no different than the ACC. My question “Is the Network really a Biblically faithful church, or is it just an anti-gay marriage sect?”

  55. michael says:

    Mark 10:11-12, I agree 100% with your sentiments…is this just an “anti-gay’ movement under the guise of the ACC/Anglican Communion or do they really want to get back to Orthodox Anglican Christianity? Having been a member of the ACCC and seeing the politics play out in that arena regarding rejoining the RC denomination, I have come to the conclusion that, depending on the purple shirt involved and his/her (ugh!) particular personal beliefs, there is a church for anyone…you just have to continue looking because orthodox Anglicanism is small in numbers..
    Independent and Loving it!

  56. Peter says:

    Please do remember Bishop Dons warning in his charge to us, and not be offset at this time.

    For sure, there are important matters to discuss, but please do this with charity and respect (though of course being the blog world I know that is not always going to happen). Robust debate is OK, but please note the TOS.

  57. Sue says:

    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.

  58. michael says:

    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….

  59. Vincent says:

    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.

  60. Mark 10:11-12 says:

    “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!

  61. obituary says:

    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.”

  62. David K says:

    We’ve got the ACoC, the orthodox Anglicans, the more-orthodox Anglicans, and the uber-orthodox Anglicans. Where does it end? Answer: Roman Catholic.

  63. David K says:

    That is, a three-tiered orthodoxy for the three ‘heresies’ if the above wasn’t clear.

  64. Jude says:

    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.

  65. Jude says:

    *** strings, I watch strings…

  66. Mark 10:11-12 says:

    Jude,

    What is the policy of the Network on the remarriage of divorced persons?

  67. Vincent says:

    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.

  68. 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.

  69. 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.

  70. 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.

  71. 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.

  72. 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.

  73. 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.

  74. 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.

  75. 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.

  76. 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.

  77. michael says:

    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….

  78. michael says:

    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.

  79. Jim says:

    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.

  80. 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.

  81. 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.

  82. 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.

  83. michael says:

    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

  84. Jim says:

    Michael,
    Now your argument is one of semantics.
    I’m not buying into it.

  85. Vincent says:

    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.

  86. michael says:

    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…

  87. Vincent says:

    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.

  88. 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.

  89. 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.

  90. 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.

  91. Vincent says:

    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?

  92. michael says:

    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!

  93. 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.

  94. 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.

  95. 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.

  96. Jim says:

    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.

  97. Vincent says:

    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?

  98. michael says:

    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…

  99. Peter says:

    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.

  100. michael says:

    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?

  101. Warren says:

    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.

  102. obituary says:

    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

  103. obituary says:

    OK here goes again. Try clicking on “obituary” for the link other wise its here
    http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/12The/SxTh/WmO/WmODMlls.htm

  104. Jim says:

    Michael,
    First this, then that, then oh yeah, but….
    Bail that boat buddy… keep bailin’ your boat.

  105. michael says:

    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

  106. Rick says:

    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.

  107. michael says:

    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!

  108. michael says:

    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…

  109. Jim says:

    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,

  110. michael says:

    The truth shall set you free……

  111. Michael says:

    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

  112. michael says:

    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.

  113. Drumroll says:

    #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.

  114. Rick says:

    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.

  115. Rev. Eric Melby says:

    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.

  116. Sue says:

    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?

  117. Sue says:

    — “male meaning component” typing too fast —

  118. michael says:

    Thank you to The Rev’d Melby for putting what I and others have been writing in the context of Mr Packer’s previous writing in 1991. However, I would point out that to say “making women presbyters” is an oxymoron in the deepest sense of the word. If we truly have read the scriptures and understand that no Bishop has the God-given right to “ordain” females, then let’s call it as it is. It is a direct violation of Biblical principles and hence, we as a Scripturally sound people cannot put the word “women” with the word “presbyters” together in any one sentence, lest we give credence to what liberalists have been doing for years…..
    The ANiC would have us believe that there is a distinction between violations of a sexual nature to that of selecting scriptural sentences (see #99) to suit the passing fancies of a certain group.
    Thanks again for your commentary Eric, it is good to know that there are clergy out there with a strong Biblical basis who will stand up and be counted, that is what the ANiC is really missing here in all the mess.

  119. Sue says:

    selecting scriptural sentences (see #99) to suit the passing fancies of a certain group.

    michael,

    I chose these “scriptural sentences” to demonstrate a translation principle. If you are not in favour of due care in the translation of scripture it is your personal privilege to disagree with me, but don’t take my concerns out of context.

  120. Rev. Eric Melby says:

    Sue,

    Thank you for your detailed response to my posting. You asked why ‘anthropos’ was not translated as ‘people’ in the verses that you cited. Let’s take one of them as an example; 1 John 5:9 “If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that he has borne concerning his Son.” The preface to the ESV Bible states, “…the words ‘man’ and ‘men’ are retained where a male meaning component is part of the original Greek or Hebrew”. In this passage, John is speaking about God’s testimony as being greater than that of men. Women at that time were not accepted as witnesses in Jewish law, nor could they teach the law. So, ‘anthropos’ is correctly translated as ‘men’ here. Our leaning today in a society of equality is to assume that ‘anthropos’ must mean ‘people’; that is, women and men, but this is not so. Your guess as to Dr’s Packer and Grudem reasoning for translating ‘anthropos’ to indicate men only seems emotive rather than logical.

    As to the differences between the ESV and the King James translation in the passages you cite, I cannot find that there is any significant difference in translation. Perhaps you could expand on that one for me please?

    As for Matthew 5:9, the KJV translators got it wrong. The Greek word being translated is ‘huios’ which means, ‘a son’–attendants, foal, man, son. I do not have a reason why they translated it to be ‘children’ (plural and without gender identification). The Greek is pretty plain.

    In summary, I am quite confident to recommend the writings of these two individuals here. I think that their contribution to Christianity (and Evangelicalism in particular) is worthy of much merit. They did not work in isolation on the ESV either, there was a rather large board of ‘people’ involved.

  121. Sue says:

    Eric,

    My point about Matt. 5:9 is that Sproul was completely unaware that Tyndale, KJV and Luther translated this verse with ” children.” He was one of those who drafted the gender language guidelines for the ESV. It is not the ultimate decision which I deplore as much as the complete lack of awareness of translation history and the disinterest in informing himself of the facts before he wrote his article. He did not ask himself why, for Luther, there are no “sons of God” but only children of God. This is a foundation of reformation theology. If these men, as translators, were not aware of why huioi was translated as “children” in the Bibles of the reformation, they could have at least informed themselves. But possibly they were ignorant of this fact and not familiar with the Bibles of the reformation.

    I note that you do not ask why the ESV has children of Israel, Acts 7:23? Are we children in the flesh but only sons in the spirit? Shall women become men in paradise? Or do women gain the same status as males through coming to Christ?

    Regarding the testimony of men – did not Christ establish that the testimony of women was to be accepted by men. Consider the 4 women in his genealogy. Think of Mary, Elizabeth, Anna, the woman at the well, Mary of Magdalene, Mary who sat at Jesus feet, and many more. Which of these women did not bear testimony of Christ to men?

    My argument for anthropoi being translated as people is this. The preface claims transparency. In order to make sense out of the Bible anthropoi must be translated as people most of the time. Only in a few specific places referring to teaching and prophecy has this version translated anthropoi as men. In Greek anthropoi means “men generic”. “Men generic” means people, both male and female. It would be nice if the translation stuck to its claim of transparency and translated anthropoi as people throughout.

    Can you explain away the other examples I have given?

    There are significant differences in these other verses.

    Gen. 3:16 The difference is desire for or desire against. Grudem teaches that the curse of woman is that she would have a wrongful desire to usurp authority over her husband. The ESV suggests in a footnote that Eve’s desire is against her husband.

    Calvin’s translation, the translation for which Calvin wrote the preface, says that the curse of Eve is that she will submit to her husband. There is a fundamental difference in theology. Both of these translations, the Olivetan and the ESV are in direct theological opposition. The KJV offers a more neutral translation with “desire.”

    Rom. 16:7 The ESV offers the fanciful notion that episemoi can mean well-known to the apostles. The Greek says outstanding or marked, stamped on. Andronicus and Junia cannot be outstanding TO the apostles, but among the apostles. But the ESV cannot acknowledge that Junia could be an apostle, even though Chrysostom had no difficulty with this idea.

    1 Cor. 11:10 “a symbol of authority on the head” There is not one case in Ancient Greek literature in which exousia means wearing a symbol of being under someone else’s authority. It just doesn’t happen.

    1 Tim. 2:12 exercise authority. In fact, this word, authenteo, was translated as dominare in the Vulgate and then as “usurp authority” in the KJV and “assume authority” in the TNIV. Grudem is on record as saying that the TNIV “assume authority” is a novel and suspect translation. He seems unaware of the KJV for this verse. I have not seen the Olivetan, but the 1560 Calvin’s Bible, an English translation of the Olivetan, has “assume authority”.

    I have to ask why Grudem would malign other translations for having in them the exact words of earlier and orthodox translations. Given that Grudem also stated categorically that all Bibles had Man in Gen. 5:2 until the 1980’s, one must assume that Grudem is not familiar with translations previous to 1952 since that is the earliest well-known translation that used Man.

    I simply do not find Grudem’s work regarding translation history or the content of Greek lexicons to be reliable. He also misunderstood the Liddell Scott entry for aner, claiming that there was not one example of the use of aner in a gender neutral way, but in fact in the lexicon there is mention of an example where the Greek uses aner, both male and female, referring to citizens. Here is the example.

    in which a member of our community–
    be he of the male or female sex, young or old,–
    may become a good citizen (aner), possessed of the excellence of soul which belongs to man (anthropos) . Plato’s Laws 6. 770d.

    Grudem is famous for saying that not one example of a gender neutral use of aner exists in Greek literature.

    Grudem is also famous for saying that not one example of hupotasso exists in Greek literature which is not submission to an authority. He is ignorant of the use of hupotasso as the correct instruction for the submission that a Christian owes his or her neighbour among church fathers (I think Clement).

    I don’t think you should recommend Grudem’s work to others.

  122. ML says:

    Wow! The theologians are at it again. And who do we believe?

    Have been reading with interest, and much of what is written here is purely academic. In theory tolerance works. In practice it does not. I am still a “conscience clause” Anglican. And I have the luxury of being able to adhere to my convictions. Why? Because I am tolerated and accomodated? No! Only because my husband is an Anglican priest! Think about it. If I live in a small community, miles from any other community with an Anglican Church, and the Bishop sends in a female priest, where will I worship?… Will the ANiC send me a male priest once in a while to accomodate my valid stand?

    These are not matters of indifference. For the last sixty years we have been foisting this and similar matters on our people in rural communities, assuming, in our urban ignorance, that dissenters can just move their membership to another Anglican Church a few blocks away! And rural folks are once more second-class citizens. In some communities, there is not even another church of any denominational flavour to which such a believer might go!

    Can all of these innovations be undone? Some of them must – and in every case there will be disagreements. Good thing the Lord God is so tolerant or we’d all be toast. (Acts 17:30)

  123. Rev. Eric Melby says:

    Sue,

    I most certainly admire your passion surrounding this subject! Perhaps the following interview series with Wayne Grudem would be informative to you and others who may stumble upon this thread. The interview is short and readable with a cup of coffee or tea. Here is the link:
    http://adrianwarnock.com/2006/12/interview-wayne-grudem-part-one.htm

    Evangelical feminism is something that the Network should really be aware of, if it isn’t already.

    Concerning the Genesis 3:16 passage, I can find no ‘fundamental difference in theology’, as you put it. The sense of the passage being translated is that the woman would now be under the authority of her husband and that her desire would be for him (or against; in opposition to his authority given by God). John Calvin says this in his commentary on this passage: “The second punishment which he exacts is subjection. For this form of speech, “Thy desire shall be unto thy husband,” is of the same force as if he had said that she should not be free and at her own command, but subject to the authority of her husband and dependent upon his will; or as if he had said, ‘Thou shalt desire nothing but what thy husband wishes.’ As it is declared afterwards, Unto thee shall be his desire, (Genesis 4:7.) Thus the woman, who had perversely exceeded her proper bounds, is forced back to her own position. She had, indeed, previously been subject to her husband, but that was a liberal and gentle subjection; now, however, she is cast into servitude.” Essentially, each translation you can throw at me will show that God pronounced that the woman’s desire would be for her husband but that he would rule over her.

    It appears to me that in your examples, you seem to take single words or phrases out of their context. The first part of this verse, “your desire shall be for your husband” needs the second part of it to make any sense, “and he shall rule over you.” As Canon Kendal Harmon is fond of saying, “a text without a context is a pretext.”

    I think that we can agree that you will not (or do not) accept the academic authority and integrity of Wayne Grudem or J.I. Packer, and that is your right. My hope is that those who pick through these threads may see and read for themselves what is taking place, and come to see that it matters what Bible you use on a daily basis. “ML” asks a great question, “…who do we believe?” (in their remark about the ‘theologians being at it again’). I can’t answer that question for anyone because I think that people were given the God-given ability to use their reasoning ability to discern truth from lies. God continues to draw His own to Himself through His Son, Jesus Christ, and I rest confident that Jesus is Lord of all.

    I would like to comment on “ML’s” post now.

    First, the issues surrounding the ordination of women pass beyond the mark of ‘tolerance’. Would we ‘tolerate’ people stealing or committing adultery in our congregations? That would be simple post-modern relativism.

    Secondly, I was a priest in a small community and I can sympathize with the example that you posit. All Christians are called to serve in a local church. It might not be Anglican, but we are to meet together so that we might grow in our sanctification process of becoming more Christ-like, and this cannot take place in isolation away from other Christians. Whether a particular congregation should accept female eldership or not is a question they would have to wrestle with. I would counsel them not to. There must be some godly men there who have a heart to serve Christ and His bride by leading. Yet, again, this assumption of mine assumes that there are godly men leading their wives and children in their homes as the Scriptures warrant. From my experience, that is not happening on a large scale. (I myself continue to struggle and learn about this in my own family and personal life and I fail miserably so often–but I keep trying and I thank God for my wife). So the issue becomes one of men ‘smartening up’ and getting with the program prescribed by God to deepen their personal relationship with Christ and praying to determine whether or not God is calling them to also lead a local Church body.

    None of us is perfect and there is no perfect Church. What matters above all of this, is whether or not you believe and trust in Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Saviour. ‘Anglicans’ don’t make it into heaven–only those individuals redeemed and washed in the blood of Jesus and trusting in Him for salvation do.

    I would hope that these posts would result in some discussion taking place in the Network about ‘these innovations’ and whether or not they can be undone, or at the very least stopped until the Communion has the chance to discuss the matter and reach consensus.

  124. michael says:

    #105, ML….You have touched on a very valid point! I would be interested in hearing more of your thoughts…

  125. Sue says:

    You seem to think that the words ” are cast into servitude” and “has a wrongful desire to usurp authority over her husband” are one and the same thing. I understand that Calvin says the curse of women is that she is cast into servitude. And Grudem says that the curse of woman is that she actively attempts to take over her husband’s authority. One of them starts with compassion for women and the other with antagonism against women.

    This is why Grudem does not associate evangelical feminism with the Salvation Army and the purity movement of 19th century England. The preaching of women was in order to raise the age of consent for girls so that they would not be legally enslaved in prostitution. When people understand the moral guardianship that preaching women took on in the 19th century, they will be free from the conclusions that Grudem teaches.

    This is why I would not recommend Grudem’s resources. I have read his books and I do not feel that they engender a healthy attititude towards women.

  126. Please clarify the statement made by the Archbishop of Cantebury and the other Bishops which reads as follows…”quote from article…our bishops have made adequate and appropriate provisions for the pastoral care and episcopal support of all members…including those who find themselves in conscientious disagreement with the view of their bishop and synod over the blessing of same sex unions,” …What adequate and and appropriate provisions for my pastoral care and espicopal support have been made by those bishops or for that matter by the Anglican Church of Canada? Where is this com,ing from?

  127. michael says:

    #109..it is the same as the ANiC saying that they will protect the conscienceness of those who oppose the “ordination” of females…it is just a nice way to say that we really don’t care what you think, if your beliefs are Biblical and follow the traditions of BCP and Anglicanism you are a square peg and we will eventually succeed in our mission to delete true Faith and Traditional Anglicanism. AC and ANiC will try to mask the real problems of disobedience to His Word by using catch phrases to try and grab the innocent in their feeble attempts to destroy Traditional Anglicanism.
    Beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing…….

  128. Rev. Eric Melby says:

    Sue said: “I have read his [Wayne Grudem’s] books and I do not feel that they engender a healthy attititude towards women.”

    Well, then you have not read Biblical Manhood and Womanhood where he and John Piper as editors, take pains to explain at the beginning the full equality of men and women as being made in the image of God yet with differing roles of authority. The link to that book (made free online in .pdf format) may be found here: http://www.cbmw.org/Recovering-Biblical-Manhood-and-Womanhood/

  129. Sue says:

    I have read it all, and I don’t think that we are at the place where we think that women should not drive buses because that would be too directive an activity, although it would be okay if a woman were to work in city hall on a traffic plan. Will you ban women from driving buses? Do you think that women have to have a special tone of voice which accords men there male headship position even when the woman is giving the gardener directions or answering a man’s question about how to get back on the freeway.

    Maybe you especially like Piper’s lists which explains that in church a woman can teach a man under 18, a woman, a prison inmate and an addict and the lame, blind, deaf and retarded. A woman could teach a man something in a secular institution that had nothing to do with theology but a woman can not teach a man Greek or Hebrew.

    Maybe you don’t realize that for Piper and Grudem equality means that both men and women go to heaven, and that men and women have equal value, men as leaders and women as followers. Do you like the part where Piper says that men give strength and women receive it. Women are to nurture and affirm the strength of worthy men. Maybe you agree that men are the moral guardians and women are for nurturing, maybe you agree with Grudem that it is the man’s greater analytic ability that puts men in the leadership role, because equal does not mean the same. For Grudem, men and women are different by design, men are designed to be leaders and women followers.

    The reason why the editors take pains to explain that men and women are equal is because it is not obvious anywhere else in the book.

    If in the home the differing roles of authority are authority for the male and submission for the woman, then this is not equal. If this difference in authority, that men have it and women don’t, is based on the fact that men were created for leadership and women for submission then men and women are not created equal.

  130. ML says:

    Funny how this so-called authority/submission of men and women always gets reduced to an equality issue. Why is that? Can people not be equal and yet the one have the authority and the other submit? Because if this is not possible, then Philippians 2:5-9 makes no sense and a hierarchical church makes no sense and democracy makes no sense… All are equal in value to God; all are equal in salvation; but there are differing roles just as there are differing gifts; some are arms and legs, some are other parts of the body – different functions, all necessary, but some are more prominent and some parts direct other parts (unless of course we suffer from some disability or disease and certain parts refuse to submit to other parts) – yet every part is necessary for the body to function properly. Interesting that Paul should use that analogy; so then sin would certainly qualify as a disability.

    Biblical submission (Eph 5:21, 22, 24) implies neither inferiority nor inequality. Jesus Christ, professed as equal with the Father (the Creeds; Jn 10:30), is nevertheless submissive (Lk 22:42; 1Co 11:3). Hand in hand with this teaching on submission is another to husbands on self-sacrificing love (Eph 5:25-33). The two cannot be divorced. In the same way the responsibility God places on those He puts in authority is mind-boggling to me. My husband, for instance, is not just in authority, he is also responsible for my wellbeing, whether physical, mental or spiritual. And I am quite willing to submit to someone who loves me so much he is willing to die for me. Submission, like weakness (1Co1:27; 2Co 12:10) and turning the other cheek (Lk 6:29) and tithing (Mal 3) and so many others, is only one more of God’s directions that runs counter to our sinful human inclinations. But, just like the others, try it: you will like it – “if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is gracious” (1Pe 2:3).

  131. Sue says:

    try it: you will like it

    Thanks, ML, I think I get the picture. I will counsel abused women to stay clear of this group. I think they have already tried “it” and they don’t like it.

    It sounds like too much Aristotle, men have the courage of command and women of submission, although in those days submission was not called equality.

  132. michael says:

    In reply to #113,
    Wow, you have such a grasp on the Biblical perspective, so good to read that someone else out there in the Anglican world is thinking with the grey matter and not just from an agenda point of view…
    Mrs.ML (and I assume you are female as your husband is a Priest) I thank you for your contribution and I look forward to hearing your thoughts on where a “walking apart” should lead or even if there is a need.

  133. ML says:

    In reply to #114,
    Interesting, how once again you pick a sinful disfunction to tell God He’s got it all wrong! Did you miss the Ephesians 5:25-33 reference concerning husbands and self-sacrificing love?

    And are you insinuating that I called submission equality? Seems to me I said it had nothing to do with equality.

    Have you been abused in the past? Or are you close to someone who has been? I am very close to someone who has, and still is being abused, and I still say that God’s plan for godly husbands and wives is that of authority and submission. Because it is not the fault of the victim that they are being abused; it is our fault for allowing it to happen, over and over again; it is our fault for not making the time to stand by the victim to prevent the abuse; it is our fault for giving the criminal more rights than the victim. I could go on, but probably would give you more points to miss.

    #115, I am still not sure whether walking apart is inevitable, although it may very well be the case soon. I am, fortunately, living and worshipping in a “safe” diocese at present, but, having watched dramatic shifts when new bishops are selected, that could just as quickly change when our bishop retires. We are a very foolish people when it comes to selecting bishops. We choose synod delegates based on their availability rather than their doctrinal orthodoxy and then are surprised when they vote with their feelings rather than their brains/hearts (assuming their hearts belong to the Lord). My husband and I have committed to staying until we are forced out, and that time may come. We have already experienced a bout of that, necessitating a move and change of diocese. But the Lord is in control and He will bring us through!

  134. Sue says:

    ML,

    I have been reading widely on abuse, so without bringing up what I have seen, which is a lot. let me say that there is a growing consensus that, (in spite of the fact that complementarians believe abuse is wrong) any system which advocates authority and submission, and any system which places divorced persons in a different category from others and shames them, acts to keep a person in an abusive situation.

    Sadly, some women have been killed because of these beliefs. Many more are injured and psychologically damaged. I do not see any way that women who are taught that men have more authority in marriage than they do, can ever take the first steps to get free of abuse. Even verbalizing one’s plight to another human being takes resisting submission to the husband and exposing oneself to shame and then the severe physical consequences when the husband finds out.

    It is sad for me to hear that you are very close to someone who is abused. It is an important first step out of abuse for a woman to break free from the idea that the male, by virtue of his gender, has more authority than the female. It is disappointing if a church does not have a good library of both Christian and secular books on abuse.

    It is not only the function of the church to stand beside victims, it is the function of the church to teach mutuality, to teach proper relations as taught in the scriptures, that Christians are to honour one another, defer to one another, to put the other first, to love one’s neighbour (one’s next one) as oneself. How sad to see that the wife is treated as less than a Christian sister. A sibling in Christ must be deferred to but a wife is put under authority.

    A church cannot release women from abuse by physically removing her, the church must clearly teach from the pulpit that there is not one scripture that says the husband is to have authority over the wife. The passages on submission are set in the context of a system in which women did not have civil rights. However, the instruction is also set in the spiritual context of mutual service and submission. Eph.5:22 must never be separated from Eph. 5:21. It is crucial to realize that these two verses share one verb, that the word “submit” does not occur in verse 21. Christians are to yield to each other.

    If this is not taught a wife will have much more difficulty psychologically resisting submission to evil. Just last night I read the story of a minister who pleaded with a woman not to return to her abusive husband. However, the woman felt so strongly the ideal of the intact family, the teachings against divorce, the respect due the husband, the greater authority of the male, that she returned and was shortly after killed.

    It is an uphill battle. The church must ask how it can prevent abuse, not how it can stand beside the victims.

    A minister must demonstrate from the pulpit the equal authority of the female. Biblical authority ultimately rests in the word, women are equally capable of interpreting the word, authority rests in our baptism and receiving the spirit of Christ, women are equally indwellt by the spirit, authority was given to the disciples to cast our demons, authority is demonstrated by familiarity with the scriptures, as Christ demonstrated authority in teaching because he knew the scriptures, authority is given to build up and not to tear down, authority is given to husband and wife in a reciprocal sexual union.

    There is not one mention in the Bible of authority being given to the husband OVER the wife.

    Only when you teach the word of God properly will women be released psychologically from abuse. That is necessary in order for the abused woman to leave.

    Your story is very sad. I have seen this situation over and over in churches which teach male authority. One simple first step against abuse can be to outlaw the vow of obedience in the marriage ceremony. This vow goes against many scriptures. However, a spiritually minded woman can be bound by this vow to suffer more than any human should. This would be my prayer that this would be removed by law for ever from the marriage contract.

  135. ML says:

    Please don’t make assumptions about me or those close to me… Such assumptions can only lead to erroneous postulations which have no practical value to this situation.

    Note: I said “stand by the victim to prevent the abuse” not just “stand beside,” and I meant that we must deal with the criminal as is needed both as brothers and sisters of the victim and through the courts. If the abuser purports to be a Christian then the Church must discipline this person. And the victim must be protected and removed from the perpetrator if at all possible (some refuse to leave, you know, and that is the most frustrating of all).

    Btw, I never said women should be doormats. Too bad you don’t know me — no-one would ever say I was a doormat and I would probably never allow anyone to abuse me.

    But I totally disagree with your assumptions that maintaining biblical directions will lead to abuse. No, absolutely not. Sin leads to abuse and, in particular, sinful submission of the abuser to his/her own wicked desires.

    On another note: Isn’t it interesting that the more power/authority women yield the emptier our churches become? We lived in one place where the men wanted to insulate the basement of the church but the women wanted to put down a carpet. They couldn’t do both. The women won. This was the beginning of the end. The women continued to dominate so the men just wandered away — they became redundant. When we got there the pews were full of gray-haired women! And they continued to outvote any brave men that might make an appearance. They laughed about it all but were unwilling to change anything. And that is just one of many examples I could relate. It is also a well-documented fact that if the husbands/fathers are not in church most of the children disappear as well! And we wonder why we have so few young people in many of our churches.

    Too bad we think we know better than God!

  136. Sue says:

    ML,

    I edited from “stand by” to “stand beside” because it sounded more supportive to me and I thought that was the intent of your remark. I was trying to be kind.

    Sadly I see your continued emphasis on discipline not a prevention.

    Btw, I never said women should be doormats. Too bad you don’t know me — no-one would ever say I was a doormat and I would probably never allow anyone to abuse me.

    I can see that clearly. I speak on the other hand for women who are abused and as an abused woman. My observation is that sometimes women who are not abused despise women who are, and are therefore unable to help them. They feel that it is the fault of the abused women, her weakness – they do not really wrestle with the problem of what happens when a man who has a problem with abuse, gets a hold of the teaching of male authority. They do not really understand that some women actually hear the word submit for what it means, to submit. They have no idea what the effects of this teaching are, and seemingly, have no answer but the courts. The laws themselves have been improved vastly by feminists activists. The easier ability to divorce has helped also . But some here want to turn the clock back. I can only suggest that this is not a good idea.

    I am deeply disturbed in every way by what I read here.

  137. ML says:

    I can only shake my head. You don’t reinterpret the Bible to say what you want to hear simply because you don’t hear what it is saying! It is not necessarily the fault of the teacher, or the material taught, that the student doesn’t learn what the teacher taught!

    A text out of context is still a pretext and the mis-interpretations these abusers and misguided submitters adhere to are not the fault of either Scripture or even often of Church teaching. If society is taken by these people to be the authority over the Word of God, then it is up to us to continue to love them and show them the right Way – God’s Way. Eph 5:21,22,24 presupposes a Christian marriage and Eph 5:25-33 must be the context of that marriage for the husband.

    And, btw, my emphasis was on the last four words of “stand by the victim to prevent the abuse” which makes your second paragraph a puzzle to me.

  138. Sue says:

    ML,

    You talk about standing by the victim to prevent abuse. Sadly I wish that someone would stand beside women BEFORE they become victims. But no one goes into the marriage with the woman, who is disinherited of free will by the vow of of obedience. Those married to abusers are more likely than not going to live out their entire lives in abuse. What prevents a church from teaching men that they don’t have authority OVER their wives. Certainly not the Bible. That verse is hard to find.

    God’s Way. Eph 5:21,22,24 presupposes a Christian marriage and Eph 5:25-33 must be the context of that marriage for the husband.

    Surely you know that abuse has the same incidence among Christians as among the general population. Among the abused women I know, two were the wives of pastors.

    I see that preventing abuse in the first place is not a concern, and my points about how a Bible translation has been mistranslated to bolster the male authority position were not read.

  139. ML says:

    Are you Anglican? And if so, can you tell me where you are getting this vow of obedience — book, page — please?

    I am not sure where you get your statistics. I would seriously question whether the abusers were truly “Christian.” And we have also not defined abuse.

    Nor have you read my point that the Bible does not substantiate male misuse/abuse of authority. Anyone abusing their authority does not know the Author of the Bible.

  140. michael says:

    I would like to correct Sue on a little fact…abusers are not always males, although statistics will show there are more females who are abused. This would have something to do with the fact that males have a “preformed” idea which starts at birth by society telling men that they have to be “masculine” and not show deep feelings. When a man is abused, they are least apt to report such abuse, hence the higher statistics for female abuse. I think if you stop and think about what you had written regarding this issue, you could see a strong “feminist” overtone which emphasizes just how belittling and culturally inaccurate your comments are to men. I feel this because I had experienced it first hand!
    Ms. ML has a grip on the whole issue of male and female living in compatibility mode (a Biblical standard from Genesis) to where the problem is at the very moment between the sexes. The ‘ordination” rite was never ascribed to males because it was a superiority theme, but rather God-given in the same manner that childbirth is given to females.
    God Bless you Ms. ML, you have given me some hope that not all Anglican women out there are determined to bring down the male species!

  141. Sue says:

    I am quite happy if the vow of obedience is gone forever. If you read the work of Evan Stark and Lundy Bancroft you might get some idea of the problem. A sense of entitlement is a necessary component of abuse. Males entitlement leads to abuse by males. These books by people who have worked with the courts in the US show the overwhelming incidence of abuse is still male on female. This was cross checked with emergency room stats. However, statistics are notoriously inaccurate on this subject in every way, so one way or another, I don’t think we can claim stats on our side.

    As for your questions, ML, by abuse I mean frequent repeated hitting, kicking, bruises, black eyes, and that sort of thing on a weekly basis. Not the sort of thing you can hum and haw about. By Christian, I mean missionaries, pastors and born again types. Take your pick. And no, the Bible does not “substantiate abuse”. However, every single human being is a sinner until the day they die. Inevitably then some people will end up married to those who have difficulty with addiction or abuse. No church can ever afford to say that they do not have members with these problems.

    michael,

    Are you saying that you have suffered physical abuse from a woman first hand? Then I am truly sorry about that. I can only tell you with complete sincerity that I would never recommend that women be given authority over their husbands. I do not ask you to recognize the authority of the female in your life. You do not need to think of yourself as owing unilateral submission to a wife. I don’t think that women are superior in any way to men, and as women are sinners too they also would use authority for personal advantage. I do not believe in any superiority of the female.

    And quite frankly I find it utterly tasteless to tell a victim of abuse that she has a feminist “overtone” and should recognize the authority of the male. I find the overall tone of male authority here oppressive and since I have experienced enough of this in real life it is time for me to go. I was a member of a church involved in the network and when I found out about the attitudes, such as those represented here, I realized that it was not for me.

    I am incredibly disturbed at the notion that all the church can offer is too stand by the victims and try to prevent further abuse. To tell you the truth, if I could not read this conversation, I would not believe that it had happened.

  142. michael says:

    Dear Sue,
    I truly understand what you are trying to say, and believe me, I support the idea that women are not subservient to men, and likewise vice versa. It is the Biblical concepts, (and they are primal) of man and woman being situated together for the building up of each other. Notwithstanding, there is a Biblical principle at the heart of ordination that does not support females being in that capacity. It has nothing to do with superiority, but rather basic ideology of why Jesus did not choose to include a female(s) as Apostles. The Anglican/Biblical traditional is built on Apostolic Succession, not on gender equality. If you do not think that Apostolic Succession is for the Church present, then why have an ANiC claiming to be “Anglican and Traditional” meanwhile scraping major items such as Succession? It looks as though they want a United/Pentecostal feel while maintaining selected Anglican traits, if that be the case, do not claim to be Anglican and Traditional, because it just cannot be.
    While in my early years I had formed an opinion that did not include female deaconesses being ordained, but it was only after much theological study and reflection that I could see a Biblical stance for such a thing. We need to understand that the service of a Deacon(ness) is much different to that of Priest (which the NT interchanges with Bishop). To say that a Deacon(ness) role is subservient to that of Priest is to undermine exactly what the Gospel is supposed to do…it is not for a “separation” of higher rankings or for gender displacement, but rather that the whole Church of God may be built up to fight a spiritual war with people using God-given gifts.
    This whole avenue which the ANiC is taking is just another form of what we already have within the ACC. The consciousness clause is found in both, so depending on what part of the fence you happen to be sitting on, you can “swing” either way (pardon the pun!)
    What the Anglican Communion needs is to get back to roots, not form these petty divisions which does nothing but make for more theological “jabs” from other denominations, from within and without. The Roman Church is now looking at Anglicans and saying “hey, now we knew this would happen since they broke away, they were only a schism anyway!”…Funny thing is, you will not see this type of thing happening within the Roman Church since they will not open the whole can of worms because of their stance on female “ordination”…and that is where this started, once the Anglican Communion opened up female “ordination’ then likewise other traditional views must come tumbling down….next thing on the agenda of Anglicans would be who or what can they marry, a dog to its owner, 2 animals, the list can only get longer!
    How long O Lord shall your children wander through this desert?

  143. Sue says:

    michael,

    It is interesting to note that many in the network do not believe in an ordained “priesthood” but a priesthood of believers. They believe that preaching headship cannot be held by women because women cannot have headship over men. This is a permanent condition of women, to be under male authority and have men make decisions, in the church and in the home. This is not the teaching of Christ, to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

    Christ chose the 12 male disciples as a representation of Israel. However I think you will find that the network leaders to not believe in a representative priesthood, as the RC do, but priesthood of believers and the teaching authority of the male.

    Personally my main concern is that any teaching of Grudem’s as mentioned earlier, be kept as far away from the network as possible. It was when my pastor quoted Grudem to me that I made a decision never to attend a network associated church again.
    Since I have already come to the conclusion that I cannot associate with this kind of attitude towards women, that they are lesser in authority, in church and home, I really should not be posting here.

  144. Sue says:

    This post might explain better than I can, what is going on in the Anglican network and why it is not good for women.

  145. michael says:

    Hello Sue,
    You raise interesting conclusions;
    First, the ANiC is upholding Holy Orders for females and in fact states that they will maintain the status quo until the whole church comes of one mind…and notice that they say the offices of Deacon and Priest but no mention of Bishop (Obviously, they really need to revamp the whole statement of what the church will be if this is not true). This is neither Traditional Anglicanism nor Biblical.
    Secondly, females, in the traditional Anglican sense really do have authority on par with males in the fact that vestries and/or Parish council is open to both…these are the guiding forces behind the smaller nucleus of Church-life. Further to this, as a member of Parish Council they (both sexes) have the capacity to serve on national and diocesan levels. What is not traditional Anglicanism is the fact that a diocesan Bishop has full dominion over the proceedings within a jurisdiction , not unlike what is happening now in various places in the Anglican Communion. Bishops are elected to guide and guard the faith, but the decisions of a national level is based on both laity and Ordered Clergy (and hopefully with the guiding of the Holy Spirit!). What we find today is that bishops who have been elected by the “people” take an authoritarian viewpoint and depending on whether or not they perceive the Bible to be the final authority, we end up with a mess such as the ACC finds itself in.
    The Church has no right to pit man against woman as if there is some measure of worthiness to gaining “authority” within its confines. The Church has the right to see that scripture’s precepts are followed and Christians have to do just that or else claim to be lukewarm, and we all know what Jesus said about that topic!
    Women have an equal voice in the traditional Church so why go against God’s ordering for the sake of claiming “authoritative right” when there is no basis to it?
    The ANiC claims to stand by and affirm the Ordinal and Preface…this is so not true and not in keeping with the Ordinal and Preface of any BCP. They have stated that women will continue to be “ordained” to the Diaconate and Presbyrate meanwhile saying nothing of the consecration of Bishophood. Logically, if one may be ordered as Priest, then likewise Bishophood would be a possibility or is the ANiC trying to say something to “Priestesses” before they cross that bridge?
    The only way that we will ever see an Anglican community is when Bishops repent of the blatant disrespect and disobedience to His Word and stop these invalid “ordinations” then prehaps we can get back to where the Church should be in relation to taking a firm stand against other sins against God such as “same-sex” marriage…
    (I really do not like writing oxymora language hence the quotation marks)

  146. Sue says:

    michael,

    I appreciate the fact that Bishop Harvey has offered women equal status in the church in terms of ordination as deacons and priests. However, I know that some active members of the network are against ordaining women. But these same men do not necessarily use the language of priesthood. They believe in the priesthood of all believers, so there is no question of priestesses because they don’t even call themselves priests. I have had many a long discussion on this. 🙂

    I have some sympathy with those who are not used to the ordination of women, but unless there is not one ordained pastor in the ACC or whatever, who has two coats, we see a rigidity to a single interpretation on the gender issue that is not followed elsewhere. That presbyters are to be the husband of one wife, is important. But how likely would it have been to find a women, the wife of two husbands. There are few enough verses that restrict women from ordination, I am almost at loss to think what you refer to. Phoebe, Junia and the daughters of Philip demonstrate that women were deacons, apostles, and prophets. Deborah was a judge. As far as I know the OT priesthood ended with Christ and we are in time of the priesthood of believers. Obviously there is some disagreement over this.

    My most pressing concern however, is the statement by bishop Jensen which I linked to.

    “Within the Anglican Church of Australia we now have the situation that in some dioceses there may be women bishops. You know that I am opposed to this innovation on scriptural grounds, believing as I do in the equality of men and women in Christ, but our complementarity in church and home. I believe that the way that God has ordered our relationships is demonstrably for the best.”

    This is a similar agenda to Grudem’s. The best for whom I might ask, For men to have authority in the home, for women not to be equal. That is clearly what he said. Women are equal in Christ and complementary in the home. By complementary, he does not mean that woman shall not work outside the home, he means that women shall receive and follow the leadership of the male in all things. Protestant women suffer the more from subordination and submission than women in the RC church or Jewish women. But it clearly seems *best* to Jensen that women be divorced from equality in church and in the home.

    Since I know that some of these ideas have been preached on in the network churches in Canada, I will not be able to attend again. I believe women are better off in the Catholic church which does not preach so much submission.

    However, in the end, I find the testimony of women preaching in the 1900’s for the sake of purity and abolition of slavery is enough of a witness to me that God intends women to lead.

  147. michael says:

    Sue,
    True, there were Deaconesses within the beginning of the NT Orders, however there were no Apostles chosen by Christ that were female. If we look at what the role of a Deaconess/Deacon is and was, it is clear it was a “server” (this is a wide description). Bishops (in the vernacular, chief Priests) chosen at first by the Apostles as they needed a Succession because the end of times did not happen when they expected and the first Apostles were dying off. In the same manner therefore, Priests were the selected on the primal basis that they would and could ascend to the rank of Bishop. You would be very hard pressed to find one reference in the original Greek and any true translation thereafter to hint at a female within that rank.
    I do not support the ANiC nor the ACC, I am however an Anglican who is traditional and very much hurt by the upset that this whole issue has caused innocent people, who in their heart of hearts, want to worship in Spirit and in Truth.
    Christianity was never meant to exclude on the issue of gender but rather all gifts be used for the building up of the body of Christ. If Jesus had called a female as Apostle, then likewise on that point females would have been included in an Apostolic Succession. Jesus’ own mother, who as scripture tells us, was highly esteemed above all others was not an Apostle. Mary Magdalene, Jesus’ close female companion was not called as an Apostle. We can cite many more females which our Lord had used to spread his Gospel but can find none called to the Apostolic rank. Why is this? Is it because of the culture that Jesus was born? Surely if we use that excuse then that would be to say God did not have the right time and place when to appear in human form, thereby saying in effect, God does not know what He is doing! Oh mere mortals, such as we are..we have scripture as the final authority and yet we do not heed His Word.
    With all of this being said, I know of many good, decent women who can put many a male Priest to shame because of their devotion and sacrifice to Our Lord, but that cannot change the fact what God has revealed through His Son. I know many women who have gifts beyond what most male clergy think they learn at seminary, but it still cannot change the fact that God has ordained it to be a male Priesthood. Indeed there is a royal Priesthood of all believers, you and I together collectively using what God gives us to draw each other closer to the Light, but to equal a royal Priesthood (all members whether male or female, laity or clergy) to the chosen 12 and their successors, would be to deny Jesus’ work while here on earth.

  148. Sue says:

    You have made a lovely jigsaw puzzle out of the presbuteros and the episkopos. You have Paul, an apostle, but not of the Lord while on earth. You have Paul who names Junia as being in Christ before him. And are all priests successors of the 12, are none successors of James or of Paul? What a muddle it is. You call Phoebe a deaconess but in the Greek she is a deacon. Do you really think that you can conger up one pattern and fit the ministry into it?

    In any case, I see you are more liberal in your views than the Grudemites who believe that women are followers by design and lack the analytical and critical thinking capacity of men. It must be difficult, however, to be a man and know that you hold your place by virtue of an affirmative action plan and not on the basis of one’s fitness for ministry. I don’t speak to you this way but generically, since I have no idea if you are ordained in any church.

    In fact, now that I have said this, that must be the reason that Grudem and his followers, disparage the intellect of women the way they do. They can’t bear to think that they dominate over an equal. Where is Christ in this? I have no idea.

  149. michael says:

    Thanks for the laughs ANiC, orthodoxy…I think not!

Leave a Reply