Anglican Mission in America : New Rules re: ordination of women.

After an extensive and thorough process of study and reflection the leadership of the Anglican Mission in America (AMiA) has announced its newly adopted policy on the ordination of women.

Archbishops Emmanuel Kolini of Rwanda and Yong Ping Chung of South East Asia, sponsors of the Anglican Mission, have provided the guidance to ordain properly qualified and called women as deacons, but not as priests or bishops.

The decision follows two years of intensive study and input on the part of a special commission chaired by the Rt. Rev. Dr. John Rodgers. Bishop Rodgers, formerly President of Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry in Pittsburgh, indicated that to his knowledge, it is the most extensive study and review of its kind on the issue of women’s ordination.

Commission members, who represented a variety of views on the topic, read a large amount of background material, dealt with the biblical texts and considered the best way forward. Along the way a major document was produced—likely the only one of its kind—outlining the various options, the pros and cons, and the exegesis related to each position. The report was then considered by the leadership of each AMiA congregation, and feedback was received. After this, the findings went to the House of Bishops in Rwanda in early October for their deliberation, and finally to the sponsoring Primates of the Anglican Mission for their decision.

As promised when the Anglican Mission was formed in 2000, the two women who had already been ordained Priests and had affiliated with the AMiA, will be permitted to continue their ministry as priests, serving on staff where called. However, women who seek affiliation with the Anglican Mission from this point on, who are already ordained as priests, will be asked to serve as deacons. Also as promised, women deacons will only be appointed to minister where they are openly received.

“As baptized Christians, we all have a call to ministry,” observed Bishop John Rodgers. “As a missionary movement, we need the full and active participation of all our members, ordained and lay. This is true of both women and men in our midst. We need godly women to provide important leadership and ministry as lay leaders, and when so called, within the sacred order of deacons.”

The full 142 page report of the study commission is now available on CD-Rom, for a cost of $5 each. To order, please contact the Anglican Mission in America’s National Mission Center at 843-237-0318, or email info@anglicanmissioninamerica.org.

I am a woman priest and do not consider myself part of the "ecusalesbian crowd." I am, in fact, one of the most orthodox priests I know, in the most un-revisionist sense of that word. I am sorry that some on this list have been "underwhelmed" by the women priests of their acquaintance-- and God knows I've run across my share of idiots as well-- but that's not a good enough reason to reject women priests altogether. If it were, the Church would have had to stop ordaining men centuries ago.

For those of us in ECUSA who do not know what to do now, this stand by the AMiA just narrows our choices even further. Where can a young conservative ordained woman find a place to live and work and proclaim the True Faith? No place I've yet found.

Strider

I'm sorry that you're caught in the middle of this controversy.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of the women who were ordained in our diocese are in the priesthood for all the wrong reasons. Of the 20-odd female priests that have passed through our parish (it's the training parish for the diocese), one is a good and faithful orthodox priest who has done well in her own parish. The others were dismal, for various reasons - from the neurotics who turned to the priesthood as some turn to psychiatry, the political feminists who are trying to prove something not shepherd the flock (the vast majority), and the frankly shorthaired mean lesbian (at least they fired her after she brought her "significant other" to a parish function).

Unfortunately, you are in a distinct minority. A lot of that, of course, has to do with the discernment and selection process in this diocese as well as in the Episcopal seminaries. None of which is your fault, but that's just the way it has turned out. Just another thing to blame the national church leadership for. The bishops should have been SEARCHING for faithful orthodox candidates, but that's not what they did.

Hi Strider1201

First off, my humble appologies to you - I realize that there are a few female presbyters who are not part of the ecusalesbian crowd, and you may certainly be one of them! Given that you are who and what you say you are then you're the fourth conservative female presbyter I've encountered in the last 5 or 6 years. Also, given that you are who and what you say you are(actually a bit more likely here on Free Republic than most places on the net) I would submit there are several issues here. I'll list them below and at the same time I'll also defend your right not to reply to them publicly, since to do so effectively may well compromise your anonymity and THAT would be problematic for any ecusa clergy at this point in time - remember the other side (in all senses of that term) reads these boards as well.

I also tend toward run-on sentences.:-)

In any case if you wish to respond via freepmail, I would be happy to carry on the discussion that way, with the end result being at least a sanitized summary of the arguments on both sides posted for the edification of Anglican freepers and other interested parties.

You've probably already heard these arguments, indeed you'll have seen most of them in the last several months right here on Free Republic. I will not be offended if you give me cut and paste answers, as long as they are YOUR cut and paste answers.

1. Depending on when and where you went to seminary you may not initially have been aware of the lack of Biblical evidence and Tradition for women to operate beyond the diaconal level. OTOH, if you've been a freeper and hanging out on the Religion board for very long, you now know at least the basics. Given that, what are your arguments *based on Holy Scripture and Tradition*, to justify the existance of female presbyters? Obviously they did not exist in New Testament times, nor in the Tradition of the Church. Any change of that magnitude must be consistent with Scripture (and where possible with Tradition) in order to be considered valid, no?

2. Given the severe (and they are *severe*) difficulties the ordination of female presbyters cause in ecumenical relations - especially those with both the Roman, and Eastern Orthodox branches of the Church - what benefit is derived which counterbalances those severe difficulties?

and (this is a new one)

3. Given that by ecusa's actions at the 2003 GC, and it's actions in NH on Sunday November 2nd; And given that AMIA is the *only* Anglican body in North America which, while recognizing female deacons, will not be in a state of open apostasy and heresy come Monday November 3rd, other than seeking to move to a Protestant denomination which doesn't recognize apostolic succession, what other options do you have? (BTW I am not in AMIA, not do I represent them in any way.)

I realize this all may not seem fair to you, but please take it from this old, partially disabled soldier, that life isn't fair, but that doesn't mean we don't have to deal with it.

Finally I also need to ask the folks on this board to avoid taking potshots at Strider1201! She's shown a lot of courage decloaking like this, and as a freeper she deserves courtesy in any case.

I can't answer this thoroughly right now, but I can start and maybe do some pieces.

I am one of only a handful of orthodox women ecusa clergy I know, too. I know just as few orthodox male clergy. Traditional Faith and Right Reason are not functions of gender. I bring this up again because it seems a very serious distinction to me. I have followed both women and men into parishes and have found that they have left people starving for Truth, but they don't give Truth. They- those clergy- say that we can't know Truth, but I say that it has been revealed, and when I say so, people cling to it like a lifeline (which it is in a very literal way). They say, "Why hasn't anyone ever told us this before?" and they are angry that they've been kept on milk when they are dying for strong meat. I have never found that the male priests have been more faithful (or less, for that matter). Questions of gender and orthodoxy are only tangentially related, and can be applied to both genders. Men go into the priesthood for all sorts of bizarre misguided reasons, too.

1. I am aware of the arguments against women's ordination. I researched them for years before pursuing orders myself. Tomorrow, when I have access to my books, I will give you a more extensive response, but let me say that it is in no way clear that the New Testamant or the Tradition forbid women from ordination past the diaconal level. Both Scripture and Tradition give a very mixed witness (unlike questions of same-sex activity, on which the combined witness of the two have been unequivocal). I can certainly acknowledge that there is a visible and viable and long-standing tradition of male-only orders, but there is another tradition as well. This is the tradition of women as overseers (bishops) in NT times (ie, letter of James), and further (Theodora Episcopa from the- was it?- 4th century), and presbyters (both elders and presiders) in Eucharistic communties under their protection as patrons. There are a ton of Pauline examples of these women- I'll look them up and get back to you. Then there are women in the roles we currently assign to priests- prophets, baptists, administrators of healing rites- which were not so clearly defined as presbyteral at the time. The tradition does not witness with one voice on this matter.

The ordination of women is not a justice issue, which was, unfortunately, how it was pushed through in the Episcopal Church (laying the groundwork for much of the difficulty we are dealing with now). Nobody has a right to ordination. But, it is not in the same ball park with the ordination of practicing homosexuals, either, as some try to make it. Being a woman is not a moral question. Engaging is sex outside of marriage is a moral issue. No man or woman unwilling to submit to the teaching of the Church should be placed in a position of leadership in it.

More later.
Strider

You wrote "The ordination of women is not a justice issue, which was, unfortunately, how it was pushed through in the Episcopal Church (laying the groundwork for much of the difficulty we are dealing with now). Nobody has a right to ordination. But, it is not in the same ball park with the ordination of practicing homosexuals, either, as some try to make it. Being a woman is not a moral question. Engaging is sex outside of marriage is a moral issue. No man or woman unwilling to submit to the teaching of the Church should be placed in a position of leadership in it."

I entirely agree - I (and no doubt many others) will await the rest of your argument.

While the correspondence in First Things is very interesting and much of it insightful, all the writers miss the essential element of the Judaeo-Christian understanding of priesthood.

This is that from the first priest Adam, down through Noah, Shem, Abraham, the first-born sons of Israel, the Levites, Jesus Christ and his Apostles - all priesthood is FATHERHOOD.

Patriarchy is a primary constitutive element of ALL the covenants established by God, and the New Covenant is the apex and perfect pinnacle and fulfilment of all that has gone before.

A priest is FATHER in the order of supernature and consequently women never have and never can be deacons, priests or bishops any more than I can be MOTHER.

It is because the Protestants rejected the radical continuities between the OT and NT priesthoods that they have failed to maintain the synonimity of priesthood and fatherhood, and have consequently drifted even further away from Christianity by attempting to "ordain" women.

I suppose it is a moot point who Anglicans "ordain" to their ministry anyway as their "orders" are not valid, and having women in their "orders" only serves to prove their invalidity.

It is absolutely hypocritical of them, though, to accept women deacons and not priests or bishops. If a woman can be a deacon, then she can also be bishop - or archbishop of Canterbury for that matter.

It is absolutely hypocritical of them, though, to accept women deacons and not priests or bishops. If a woman can be a deacon, then she can also be bishop - or archbishop of Canterbury for that matter.

I'm not sure if it's hypocritical, but it is inconsistent. I've never seen anything that demonstrates that the nature of the diaconate is somehow different than the nature of the episcopacy. It is, from what I have seen, an "extension" of the episcopal office, if you'll pardon my use of a somewhat inprecise term.

As a "continuing Anglican" I am heartened to see the AMiA taking the position that they have taken. While it does raise questions and uncertainties, it is, at the very least, a step in the right direction and should be welcomed as such. It does open doors for unifying Anglican churches that, since 1978, have been outside the "official" Anglican Communion.

Hmmm...how rude. You may choose not to acknowledge that I am a priest, but at least give me credit for having a brain. Having read my Bible a time or two, plus a few other things-- patristic writings, scholastic writings, reformation writings, contemporary orthodox and even Orthodox writers, I remain convinced along with about half of the worldwide Anglican communion and the pronouncements of Lambeth that female gender is not in itself an impediment to ordination. If it was just about my personal sense of call, that'd be a non-question: I do have a personal sense of call, but it's irrelevant in the face of the witness of Scripture and Tradition. Even the Orthodox have declared that there's no theological or Scriptural reason not to ordain women. The tradition struggles with the question and so do we still.

"Hmmm...how rude."

Utter nonsense. It is, however, not merely dishonest but also rude of you to kick off your screed with such an accusation.

"but at least give me credit for having a brain."

Having a brain is no guarantee of arriving at correct conclusions. Not a few highly intelligent people are atheists, and they're dead wrong about that, aren't they?

"I remain convinced along with about half of the worldwide Anglican communion and the pronouncements of Lambeth that female gender is not in itself an impediment to ordination."

And each and every one of you is not only wrong, but wrong where you have no excuse for being wrong. The scriptures are clear: let your women be silent in church.

I think it was Orwell who said that there are some things that only an intellectual could believe, because an ordinary man would never be so foolish. There is a whole constellation of such things that must be accepted before one can rationalize away that scripture.

"I do have a personal sense of call, but it's irrelevant in the face of the witness of Scripture and Tradition."

Too bad you didn't stop right there.

"Even the Orthodox have declared that there's no theological or Scriptural reason not to ordain women."

Some heretics may have uttered that lie, but that hardly justifies any sweeping statement that "the Orthodox" have declared such a thing.

"The tradition struggles with the question and so do we still."

We all struggle with Satan and his lies, with the glamor of evil, here represented by women presuming to the status and dignity of priest. That one, however, is so clearly refuted by Scripture, Tradition, Theology, and common sense that it's difficult to have patience with those who get it wrong.

As a matter of fact, the only reason to have patience with your wrongful conduct in calling my post "rude" is that it is clearly an attempt by Satan to tempt me to anger, and I should withhold my consent to that temptation.

This is also true of your comment regarding "a brain." From the time Our Lord called his first disciple through the nineteenth century we relied on the Word of God and Tradition to tell us that women should not be priests, but now we are to bow to your "brain," which in its godlike perspicacity has discovered that we were wrong all those centuries.

What did the serpent whisper to Eve? "You shall be as gods." And what does that mean but "You no longer need listen to the Word of God, but can rely on your "brain" to tell you right from wrong." And, I suppose, that you can call people "rude" when they tell you it is not your "brain," but the Word of God that shows us the truth.

The Episcopal Church would never have found itself torn apart by the ordination of a sodomite had it not first cooperated with Satan and Original Sin to the extent of ordaining women.

And if your "brain" finds it "rude" to be told that the Word of God contradicts its own conceits, that's something for you to work out through prayer and reflection--and by reading your Bible until you *get* that women aren't supposed to be priests.

Don't put words in my mouth. I can respect a person is who is not afraid to declare that some things are right and some are wrong- I'd rather have that than the ridiculous relativism and so-called pluralism we get in the Episcopal Church these days. You may say that I am wrong, but when I ask you to give me credit for having a brain, I am asking for a simple acknowledgement that I have done my homework. Clearly you feel that I have arrived at a wrong conclusion, but if that's so it's not because I didn't "read my Bible."

But I did not say and would not say that the Church was wrong for however many centuries, and that She should now toss out Tradition in favor of my personal interpretation. I never made any claim to "godlike perspicacity," but I do make a claim to intelligence. Intelligent people can be wrong, as you pointed out and as you declare me to be. Obviously nothing I can say will ever convince you that I am not wrong, and I can live with that. I'd rather have people around who have the faith to stand up for their convictions that the alternative.

Keep the faith.
Strider

"Don't put words in my mouth."

More false witness.

"when I ask you to give me credit for having a brain, I am asking for a simple acknowledgement that I have done my homework."

That dog won't hunt, sorry. The clear meaning of your statement was to give yourself credit for native intelligence. No other interpretation, however strained, is the slightest bit plausible.

"Clearly you feel that I have arrived at a wrong conclusion, but if that's so it's not because I didn't "read my Bible."

1. My opinion is not the result of "feeling," but of thought, prayer, and above all, reliance on the scripture. The only feeling I have in this regard, and this is after the fact and not a factor in my opinion, is actual, physical nausea when I see a woman decked out in priestly garb.

2. The clear implication of my statement, "read until," is that you need to re-read a few hundred dozen times, because your previous readings didn't take. By no stretch of the imagination can my words be construed to mean that you haven't read your Bible at all.

Not only have you misconstrued my argments, you attempt to misconstrue your own.

"But I did not say and would not say that the Church was wrong for however many centuries"

All right, stop the music. That's exactly what you are saying when you wrongly and wrongfully assert that it's okay for women to be priests.

"and that She should now toss out Tradition in favor of my personal interpretation. I never made any claim to "godlike perspicacity," but I do make a claim to intelligence."

Having had your position read back to you in plain English, shorn of the sophistries and illogic which alone sustain it, you wish to disavow it.

You are absolutely claiming that the Church should toss out Tradition in favor of your personal interpretation, and you have the gall to do that because you think your "intelligence" sufficient to allow you to identify "mistakes" in tradition and devise fixes for them. An "intelligence" sufficient to that purpose must necessarily have godlike perspicacity, as the task you have set yourself is nothing less than overruling God.

"Obviously nothing I can say will ever convince you that I am not wrong"

Translation: "You are closed-minded, and no amount of factual evidence or reasoned argument could ever prevail in the face of your pig-headed stupidity." How rude.

If you had any convincing arguments to make, in the face of scriptures that clearly contradict your position, I would give them scrupulous and honest consideration.

In any case, as you are the one acting wrongly and wrongfully, it is not for you to convince me, but for you to open your mind to the correct doctrine.

"I'd rather have people around who have the faith to stand up for their convictions that the alternative."

And I'd rather have people who are open-minded enough to give honest consideration to the arguments arrayed against them. Standing up for a conviction that contradicts scripture is no virtue.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.