Dilemma

I imagine you have prayed about why you have this point of view.

If you are in an urban area, you should be able to find a church with only male clergy, or, failing that, a male incumbent.

We are very excited in our fellowship to be getting our first ever, in 1000 years, a female curate!

Patrick Bateman said:

The only decent local church happens to be Anglican which, ironically, is the closest thing to a non-denom around here(The way the Vicar is and also the diversity of denominations at the church).

My problem is the Church of England's stance on allowing female clergy which is something I disagree with. Should I just go to the church and hope that no female clergy come on in my time there? I don't know if I should avoid the church(As a whole) in general or whether I should see what it's like and then if female clergy come on, I'll leave. Still, it would be a shame to find a home and then have to leave.

It'll be my regular church for the next 3 years until I move abroad.

Any suggestions?

Click to expand...

I agree about the importance of not compromising one's faith by belonging to any church that has adopted some morally wrong teachings or adulterated the faith. By membership, you are at least tacitly giving your approval. In this case, however, you don't have a better choice of church, you won't be around for a really long time, and this parish doesn't currently have a female cleric.

Aside from evaluating how significant this departure from traditional Christian practice amounts to (and there are several ways of looking at it, even among opponents of "women's ordination"), I'd say your best approach is to attend without holding membership there. The distinction is very small in everyday practice, but it is big in terms of one's conscience. With any luck, you'll move on as you anticipate without there ever being a woman deacon or priest there.

Liberasit said:

I imagine you have prayed about why you have this point of view.

If you are in an urban area, you should be able to find a church with only male clergy, or, failing that, a male incumbent.

We are very excited in our fellowship to be getting our first ever, in 1000 years, a female curate!

Click to expand...

^My sentiments as well.

On a local level, this may not be an issue at all. Consider, perhaps, why the CofE & many other churches allow all called human persons - male or female - to seek ordination. Maybe you already have done this, but if not it would help you understand a different perspective.

Good luck.

Patrick Bateman said:

The only decent local church happens to be Anglican which, ironically, is the closest thing to a non-denom around here(The way the Vicar is and also the diversity of denominations at the church).

My problem is the Church of England's stance on allowing female clergy which is something I disagree with. Should I just go to the church and hope that no female clergy come on in my time there? I don't know if I should avoid the church(As a whole) in general or whether I should see what it's like and then if female clergy come on, I'll leave. Still, it would be a shame to find a home and then have to leave.

It'll be my regular church for the next 3 years until I move abroad.

Any suggestions?

Click to expand...

The Anglican Communion has been, for several decades, increasingly ordaining women. As of right now, most provinces and all the extra-provincial dioceses canonically ordain women to any order, and only 5 I believe don't ordain women at all. The only changes are expected to be towards increased acceptance of women's ordination.

There are, however, canons in place in several areas that were established for the benefit of individuals who don't accept women's ordination. This is the currently true in the Church of England. I strongly suggest talking with your priest-in-charge.

I wish I could say stick with it for the time being, but after doing that for many years I can tell you it will take a toll on you spiritually and emotionally. It also might cause you think or act in uncharitable ways. As hard as it has been for me to leave my home of many years, being Ina place that I no longer have to think about it and just focus on my spiritual progress has been so refreshing! It is a matter of conscience, having a clear one is the best thing for your wellbeing. Just one man's opinion. Best of luck in this situation, I wish you all the best.

Patrick Bateman said:

The only decent local church happens to be Anglican which, ironically, is the closest thing to a non-denom around here(The way the Vicar is and also the diversity of denominations at the church).

My problem is the Church of England's stance on allowing female clergy which is something I disagree with. Should I just go to the church and hope that no female clergy come on in my time there? I don't know if I should avoid the church(As a whole) in general or whether I should see what it's like and then if female clergy come on, I'll leave. Still, it would be a shame to find a home and then have to leave.

It'll be my regular church for the next 3 years until I move abroad.

Any suggestions?

Click to expand...

Sufficient to the day are the troubles thereof.

If you have a priest you are happy with, then stay with the church. If a woman officiates, then either take communion from her or remain seated, as the Spirit moves on that day.

The 'stance' of the Church of England is to allow those who have problems with women being ordained to remain just as fully members of the church as anyone else.

Catherineanne said:

Sufficient to the day are the troubles thereof.

If you have a priest you are happy with, then stay with the church. If a woman officiates, then either take communion from her or remain seated, as the Spirit moves on that day.

The 'stance' of the Church of England is to allow those who have problems with women being ordained to remain just as fully members of the church as anyone else.

Click to expand...

I get the idea from the OP that it's more than just maneuvering around this issue, however, with Patrick. It's also about the matter of his conscience and being affiliated with a church he feels has taken a wrongful stance on an important doctrinal matter. Unfortunately, he may have no choice but to live with that, if he can, or else to attend another church which either holds the same POV about this or is wrong on a number of other issues, or not attend church (the least appealing of the choices).

Patrick Bateman said:

Sorry, sometimes I am not getting 'alerts' to posts and I've only just seen some of these.

But yes, you're right. I'm hesitant to say it's like 'guilt by association' because regardless of my feelings on the matter I don't want to denigrate the church, I'd rather just move on and I'm trying to determine whether I can reconcile with those differences on an organisational level regardless of whether they affect the individual establishment.

Click to expand...

Yes, and IMHO that is something that only you can decide, based upon what you really feel--deep down--to be the right course.

You know the issue, so that's not the problem. The answer, then, can only be what your conscience tells you after you have all the considerations and possible alternative courses of action in mind. What's more, we know that informed and sincere people who have seen the dilemma just as you are doing have chosen different responses to it. So follow your own conscience.

Patrick Bateman said:

Sorry, sometimes I am not getting 'alerts' to posts and I've only just seen some of these.

But yes, you're right. I'm hesitant to say it's like 'guilt by association' because regardless of my feelings on the matter I don't want to denigrate the church, I'd rather just move on and I'm trying to determine whether I can reconcile with those differences on an organisational level regardless of whether they affect the individual establishment.

Click to expand...

If 'guilt by association' were a thing, no church would be safe.

Meanwhile, we have to find somewhere to go, potential issues notwithstanding.

Albion said:

Yes, and IMHO that is something that only you can decide, based upon what you really feel--deep down--to be the right course.

You know the issue, so that's not the problem. The answer, then, can only be what your conscience tells you after you have all the considerations and possible alternative courses of action in mind. What's more, we know that informed and sincere people who have seen the dilemma just as you are doing have chosen different responses to it. So follow your own conscience.

Click to expand...

I have always found US individualism fascinating. It is one of the traits that defines us.

Nowhere else in the world would we give the advice you have given, to leave the Church when we disagree with an individual doctrine, and move to a church that more agrees with our understandings.

Let's be clear. I have no criticism of the OP or your advice. I agree with your advice. I have done this myself, more than once.

I pray about this issue from time to time. Perhaps the Church, and even salvation, is more about community than individuals, and Orthodox and some others teach.

mark46 said:

I have always found US individualism fascinating. It is one of the traits that defines us.

Nowhere else in the world would we give the advice you have given

Click to expand...

On the contrary, what I referred to is intimate to what some of the greatest lights in Christian history--Blessed Martin Luther included--believed. It's also critically important in Roman Catholic thinking. So I really can't agree with your thinking that it's indicative of some basic difference between cultures.

to leave the Church when we disagree with an individual doctrine

Click to expand...

What an unfortunate misreading of the issue. I find myself in agreement with a large percentage of your posts, Mark, but I have to conclude that you're off the "mark" on this one.

Worse, what Patrick told us in the OP didn't amount to him leaving the Church (as you alleged) or even leaving his own denomination!

Albion said:

On the contrary, what I referred to is intimate to what some of the greatest lights in Christian history--Blessed Martin Luther included--believed. It's also critically important in Roman Catholic thinking. So I really can't agree with your thinking that it's indicative of some basic difference between cultures.


What an unfortunate misreading of the issue. I find myself in agreement with a large percentage of your posts, Mark, but I have to conclude that you're off the "mark" on this one.

Worse, what Patrick told us in the OP didn't amount to him leaving the Church (as you alleged) or even leaving his own denomination!

Click to expand...

As I said I have no criticism at all of the OP. I was musing with regard to individualism within the Western Church. And yes, I did that after reading that

"It's also about the matter of his conscience and being affiliated with a church he feels has taken a wrongful stance on an important doctrinal matter. Unfortunately, he may have no choice but to live with that, if he can, or else to attend another church which either holds the same POV about this or is wrong on a number of other issues, or not attend church (the least appealing of the choices)." and "The answer, then, can only be what your conscience tells you after you have all the considerations and possible alternative courses of action in mind. What's more, we know that informed and sincere people who have seen the dilemma just as you are doing have chosen different responses to it. So follow your own conscience."

I stated my personal view on individualism after reading the above. I believe that this sort of advice is relatively new. Has the answer to doctrinal issues really always been to live with it, find another church or not attend church? In a sense, that has always been true.

However, it is personal view that leave the Church because of a doctrinal issue is much more an American practice than a practice from the rest of the world. Yes, it happens everywhere, but in the US, church hopping has become almost normative behavior. What percentage of US Christians who attending church last Sunday attended the church in the denomination of their childhood. Note that I am NOT suggesting that US individualism is wrong. I am saying that community tends to be more important elsewhere.

With regard to Martin Luther, I don't believe that he had any intention of changing churches. Rather the opposite, he want to remain in the Church and wanted to see changes, primarily in practices. Luther certainly considered himself Catholic, as any Augustinian monk would.
========
BOTTOM LINE
I apologize if my comments suggested criticism of the OP or of your posts. As you say, we often agree. As you know the issue of splitting over doctrinal change has been an issue that I have had to deal with, both in Roman Catholic Church and as an Anglican. I have changed churches and I have had my church formally change my denomination.

mark46 said:

As I said I have no criticism at all of the OP. I was musing with regard to individualism within the Western Church. And yes, I did that after reading that

"It's also about the matter of his conscience and being affiliated with a church he feels has taken a wrongful stance on an important doctrinal matter. Unfortunately, he may have no choice but to live with that, if he can, or else to attend another church which either holds the same POV about this or is wrong on a number of other issues, or not attend church (the least appealing of the choices)." and "The answer, then, can only be what your conscience tells you after you have all the considerations and possible alternative courses of action in mind. What's more, we know that informed and sincere people who have seen the dilemma just as you are doing have chosen different responses to it. So follow your own conscience."

I stated my personal view on individualism after reading the above. I believe that this sort of advice is relatively new.

Click to expand...

"New" as of 1521...or what exactly did you have in mind as the timeframe?

However, it is personal view that leave the Church because of a doctrinal issue is much more an American practice than a practice from the rest of the world.

Click to expand...

I think the reason for that is obvious--we have much more diversity than most. Many people from other countries can hardly believe that, in the USA, you can choose between dozens of different denominations in the same community. Most of this, of course, owes to patterns of immigration

in the US, church hopping has become almost normative behavior.

Click to expand...

I feel as though this discussion is heading for the inevitable question, "What's wrong with that?"

With regard to Martin Luther, I don't believe that he had any intention of changing churches.

Click to expand...

I cited Luther because you had decried reliance upon conscience--or at least seemed to be doing that. He is, as you probably know, downright famous for upholding the importance of conscience.