"It's the end of Anglo-Catholicism"

Rod:

In Anglo-Catholic understanding, it is the bishop who carries apostolic succession and conveys its benefits. A-C priests and others can "avoid" women "priests" (who are not really that in their eyes), but if a woman pretends to function as a bishop, everything she does is questioned or considered invalid. In other words, any confirmation, ordination, or other sacramental act, as well as her invalidity as a teacher of the faith, suddenly multiplies and compounds a host of pastoral problems. Since a woman cannot by nature receive the charism of priesthood or episcopacy, those who receive ministry from her are not assured of the means of grace. Further, in the eyes of many A-Cs, the priesthood is an extension of the episcopacy; so a priest is participating in the apostolic ministry of the bishop to whom he is submitted. While an A-C priest can ignore or discount the ministry of female pretenders to the priesthood, and rescue people from it, he cannot function under an invalid bishop, especially a woman who cannot be a bishop. This could and should also apply to men who have invalidated their Orders, such as through unrepentant homosexuality, marrying another male, etc.

Rod,

Why are you so fascinated in the end of Anglicanism? You were born Methodist, were RCC, now Orthodox.

How does this affect you at all?

It is unseemly to see a Christian taking joy in the downfall of another church.

How sad to watch these groups being wrenched apart, as represented in the linked article. And it is striking how empty the reported drive for "compromise" sounds to an outsider.

On the one hand it is said to be morally required that the church ordain women as bishops, and that these women must be respected as the equal of any other bishop.

On the other hand it is also said to be morally required (although troubling that it is necessary) that some kind of accomodation be made for those who believe such ordinations are forbidden.

But any such accomodation must not dimish the status of women bishops.

But the traditionalists must not be forced to recognize them.

But they must recognize them or else the women bishops won't be equal.... And around and around they go, seeking a compromise that will overcome the principle of non-contradiction.

From a distance it seems so obvious that these two goals are not compatible, and that in the end those "troubling" traditionalists will not be accomodated. But no one wants to admit this, and so, according to the article, they seem set to spin this out for another couple of years seeking legislation to square a circle.

Why not just acknowledge reality and be done with it?

Yeah, what joy? I take no joy in the downfall of Anglicanism. I have good friends who are suffering because of this. Besides, it's not like the Catholics, the Orthodox or any other Christian church (save possibly -- possibly -- the Pentecostals) are in good shape in England. The loss of England to Christianity is a cultural and spiritual calamity beyond my ability to describe. That's what I think.

What I do mock is the idea that the progressives have won anything. "I'm absolutely delighted that we are taking the next step," the woman says. Yeah, you are -- off a cliff.

Hi,

I've read this blog for a while but haven't been compelled to post until now. Maybe it's just my misunderstanding as a Christian raised Baptist who currently attends both a non-demominational Protestant and a Methodist Church when I can who considers a biblical, authentic, classical Christianity to be the core of his values, political or not. I guess what I am wondering here is: why would the ordination of a female strike a blow to biblical Christianity and its place in culture? Is there an inferiority of female leaders that would contribute somehow to moral decline? In my experience, women are just as capable of being a great church leader and the only real argument I can think of against it (as long as she is true to the church and its beliefs) is traditions, which I don't personally see as any more in this case than some rules written down by some humans years and years after the scriptures were written.

-Andrew

I am much more interested in the content of the preached message and in the pastoral skills of the leader, than in the gender of the leader. Few seem to be asking about whether the female bishops will promote the preaching of the authentic Gospel and people-centered pastoral skills; people are mostly reacting to the gender as an abstract doctrine. I have been involved in (Protestant) church leadership for 15 years, and have seen incompetent and ineffective male preachers who (perhaps not coincidentally?) draw a hard line against female leaders. Pardon my cynicism but I think there may be more going on here than devotion to capital-T Tradition.

"So, alas, will all the others, barring a miracle."
yes...
and not just in Britain...
minimal in the USA and elsewhere also...
yes...
and based on past history...
the Absent God will continue Its policy of inaction...
yes...
there are no reliable Miracles in the past...
the Church can expect none in the future...
oh well...
carry on...

change faith hope love joy peace to all...
Forgive God...

"OK, but what I don't understand is why a church that accepts women priests can't accept women bishops."

Not being Anglican, but a conservative Presbyterian who believes in male clergy, I can only guess that if Father Nancy shows up at St. James, you can take the family to St. George, but if Father Nancy becomes Bishop Nancy, you have a more difficult problem. (I'm being facetious with the Father Nancy thing, but seriously, what DO you call a female priest?)

That's the purely practical answer. On a theological level, I don't really see that big a distinction, myself.

There are so many examples in the Bible of women having spiritual authority, that not to allow women spiritual authority in the church seems to me a blatant disregard of the Bible. These episodes occur in both the old and new testaments. Christ himself endorses it when he meets the woman at the well, and she tells others of him and brings him followers. Paul also moved within a circle of women with authority in the church, who were teachers and, depending on how you read Romans 16, "apostles" (re: Junia).
I agree with TEC on women in authority, because I believe it has a biblical basis.

I would invite a look at Fr. Alexander Schmemann's treatment of the Orthodox position:

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/SchmemannOrdination.php

Richard

So in other words, there is no equivalent title for a woman, because you can call a man Rev. Jim, Pastor Jim, OR Father Jim.

Interesting.

Why is priestess belittling rather than descriptive (and in this case, simply making the existing incongruity more obvious)? I never got why a gender-specific title is belittling if there's nothing demeaning about being a woman, which there isn't.

The really amazing thing is that we keep paying attention to the Anglicans / Episcopals. They're an irrelevant blip on the church scene, yet we all (me included) seem fascinated to watch their death dance.

Re priestesses and bishopesses: some here have noted the strong argument that Jesus did not chose female disciples. The counter argument is that this was simply a cultural custom at the time and the Jewish religion (a sacrificial one at the time) had no priestesses (unlike the pagan cults). Jesus was a man with a decidedly conservative crunch.

The stronger argument is that Paul decreed that women should be silent in church. Paul was a man of great practical acumen.

The strongest argument was made once by Spengler, the pseudonymous gadfly of Asia Times. He argues that women should not be priests because women never forgive anything. Spengler is a man of profound psychological insight.

If I call Lindsay Lohan an actress, am I demeaning her? (Or am I demeaning actresses?)

Actually, you might be. Actresses have gone about calling themselves "Actors" lately. It's a PC thing.

Roland de Chanson: "He argues that women should not be priests because women never forgive anything."

What nonsense, Roland. Why, I've forgiven you six or eight times already, and we've barely met. ; )

I would also argue that the continued survival of men in general, and Spengler in particular, disproves his point immediately. If women never forgave, y'all menz would have been dead a long time ago.

"Unless you're Rod, then you call her a priestess as a means of belittlement."

No, we call them priestesses because to the orthodox Catholic and the right-believing Orthodox a "woman priest" is an existential and ontological impossibility, like a four-sided triangle. A woman can no more be a priest than she can be a father.

By the way, a friend of mine who lived in England for quite awhile, and still visits there often to do ecumenical ministry says that the Anglicans stand to lose something like 1,200 congregations over this issue.

Scripture forbids women to be priestesses quite plainly. Notions of women in "spiritual authority" in scripture are quite comical.

"11 Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed; then Eve. 14 And Adam was not seduced; but the woman being seduced, was in the transgression." (1 Timothy 2.11-14)

"34 Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith. 35 But if they would learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church." (1 Corinthians 14.34-35)

When the Bible records God forming a new priestly community, the Aaronic and Levitic priesthoods, and that of the New Testament at the Last Supper, no women are involved.

Many clamor for priestesses today because the traditional roles of women as virgins, wives, and mothers are so denigrated by society. This is really the height of misogyny, because the attitude is rooted in the belief that women can never realize their fullest potential until they abandon the feminine role and act like men and do what men do (work instead of staying at home, fight in the army, be priestesses, etc.)

Why pay attention to Anglicanism?

We're the default church of all Anglo-Saxon countries including the US. Watch an American movie made before 1960. If there's a wedding chances are very good that they'll use the BCP (Dearly Beloved...).

Anglicans won WWII (on the Western side). All the general officers (save Ike) were Anglicans (including John Sidney McCain).

The American Aristocracy was Anglican until quite recently (and hasn't it gone down hill).

Chapel *needs* Church (whether Rome or Canterbury) for the intellectual leadership.

We're the 3rd largest Christian Church at 70 million (almost all of them in the 3rd world and very orthodox).

Great churches and music.

Why not priestesses:

The Priest represents Christ and the congregation represents the church. Christ is God the head/father of the church and in a Western religion like Christianity, the church is the wife/woman/bride of the male figure of Christ. A priestess would convert Christ into the female bride of the male congregation/church. This genderbending imagery would reverse the power relationship between God and Man and convert God into the receptacle of Man's gifts. While this might work in Greenwich Village, even there it would completely change the nature and the relationship of God and Man and abolish the very Christian conception of the nature of God.

Priests in the Orthodox, Roman, and Anglican traditions are not merely teachers (like Rabbis), counselors (Ministers), theologians, lawyers, elders (Presbyters), or prayer leaders (like Imams). The priesthood combines all of these jobs but there is an additional aspect -- a priest is a magister, a magician. Priests perform sacerdotal magic. They transubstantiate, they act as an intermediary for the passage of grace from God to Man, they drive out demons, they act as a focus of God's healing power. The power to perform sacerdotal magic is not something everyone has. The traditional Christian church believes it to be a sex-linked characteristic. (Note that believers in non-Christian magic and witchcraft also believe that magical powers differ between men and women and even between virgins and those with sexual experience.) For followers of the Undivided Church, sacraments and other magics performed by a properly ordained man "work" but would fail to work if performed by a woman even if she's gone through an ordination ceremony.

Then there are the practical reasons:

Political Differences - Priestesses are much more likely than priests to be "soft". They are much more likely to fall victim to the naturalist heresy. To convert the Christian church into an Earth Cult. See your local TEC church. Part of a priest's job is to serve as a war leader. Men average better war leaders than women and are much more likely to actually take on the job.

Demographic Differences - It is well known to employment researchers that when a job category reaches a certain level of female participation the men leave and the job category becomes mostly female. In the case of churches, female-headed churches will be mostly female in the pews. Male-headed churches will be demographically even in the pews. Evangelicals and Traditionalist Anglicans have a good gender balance (particularly on Sunday). Most everyone else doesn't. Roman churches have tended to try and compensate for male priests by giving all the other "front" jobs to women and male attendance is falling there too.

I do actual counts in any church I attend and the traditionalist Anglicans are pretty even in the pews. I find Catholic churches woman heavy and everyone will have seen articles bemoaning the lack of men in most Protestant denominations.

i love all this shitty theology. Things like, "jesus was male," so priests must be male. Really, how absurd.