Continuing Anglicanism & Churchmanship

[everbecoming2007]

I did a bit of reading on Continuing Anglicanism. It looks like the Anglican Catholic Church is the biggest group. Out of the various bodies I saw only one listed as low church (or perhaps primarily a low church group). It seems like a great deal of Continuing Anglicanism is high church or even Anglo-Catholic. Is this an accurate assessment?

 

[CanadianAnglican]

Given that the continuing movement originally split over the ordination of women, that does make a bit more sense. There are certain Biblical arguments towards the ordination of women (see NT Wright, for example) but if you hold a high view of the sacraments and of Anglican Catholicity, the ordination of women is much more of a deal breaker for the simple fact that whatever might be permissible, the ordination of men only is the tradition which has been received by the Catholic Church, east and west, and therefore the Anglican Communion or parts thereof have no authority to alter that and innovate. We don't have our own sacraments, only those of the Catholic Church and they aren't ours to innovate.

That's my guess at any rate.

 

[everbecoming2007]

Given that the continuing movement originally split over the ordination of women, that does make a bit more sense. There are certain Biblical arguments towards the ordination of women (see NT Wright, for example) but if you hold a high view of the sacraments and of Anglican Catholicity, the ordination of women is much more of a deal breaker for the simple fact that whatever might be permissible, the ordination of men only is the tradition which has been received by the Catholic Church, east and west, and therefore the Anglican Communion or parts thereof have no authority to alter that and innovate. We don't have our own sacraments, only those of the Catholic Church and they aren't ours to innovate.

That's my guess at any rate.

Quite a few of the members of my parish are of a more evangelical bent but very opposed to women's ordination, although I'm not sure they can articulate theological reasons: they tend to be opposed to change in general. With one exception a woman has never presided in my parish. With that one exception the visiting priest was slipped in under the radar while we were priestless by a few liberal members handling that situation for a special service that I suppose required more than Morning Prayer, the service we had to do when no priest was available. This woman was the only priest who could be there that Sunday apparently. People were incensed, but no one said anything about it openly, and they still received the Sacrament. I suppose they do not think of the issue of a woman priest as invalidating the Eucharist. They just don't like it for whatever reason. It was interesting: with her back toward us at the altar I didn't notice the difference as much. It has been much more striking to me when I've seen in other settings outside of my parish women presiding at the altar facing us.

 

[Albion]

I did a bit of reading on Continuing Anglicanism. It looks like the Anglican Catholic Church is the biggest group. Out of the various bodies I saw only one listed as low church (or perhaps primarily a low church group). It seems like a great deal of Continuing Anglicanism is high church or even Anglo-Catholic. Is this an accurate assessment?

Yes -- with two qualifications.

1. Even those that are called Low Church wouldn't really be considered that by many Anglicans. The typical amount of ceremony you'd encounter in them would actually be more like something in the middle. But they are accepting of a mix of parishes, of Low Church parishes just as much as High Church parishes. They do not squeeze out or look down on Low Churchmen.

2. And it would be more accurate to say that the divide is between Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical Anglican than between High Church and Low Church.

The "rap" on the Anglican Catholic Church, going back to the early days of the movement, has been that it wants to have a certain standard, not a lot of variety...and that standard (as even the name of the church reflects) was made in the image of the church's first bishops. They were High Churchmen and, by most people's thinking, Anglo-Catholics.

 

[Albion]

Given that the continuing movement originally split over the ordination of women, that does make a bit more sense. There are certain Biblical arguments towards the ordination of women (see NT Wright, for example) but if you hold a high view of the sacraments and of Anglican Catholicity, the ordination of women is much more of a deal breaker...That's my guess at any rate.

This isn't the case, however. Among Continuing Anglicans, there is unanimity on this subject. Women's ordination is "out." The way each side comes to its conclusion may be different (tradition vs scripture) but the two agree on the standard and no genuine Continuing Anglican jurisdiction ordains women.

Interestingly enough, though, and if we consider Anglicans generally (not confining the discussion to Continuing Anglicans), it may be that Anglo-Catholics are more willing to yield on this point than are Evangelical Anglicans.

 

[everbecoming2007]

This isn't the case, however. Among Continuing Anglicans, there is unanimity on this subject. Women's ordination is "out." The way each side comes to its conclusion may be different (tradition vs scripture) but the two agree on the standard and no genuine Continuing Anglican jurisdiction ordains women.

Interestingly enough, though, and if we consider Anglicans generally (not confining the discussion to Continuing Anglicans), it may be that Anglo-Catholics are more willing to yield on this point than are Evangelical Anglicans.

I don't know how evangelicals tend on the subject, but it seems to me a lot of Anglo-Catholics are liberal socially. Both liberal Roman and Anglican Catholics argue for liberal social positions often in terms of a sacramental imagination or worldview.

 

[Albion]

I don't know how evangelicals tend on the subject, but it seems to me a lot of Anglo-Catholics are liberal socially. Both liberal Roman and Anglican Catholics argue for liberal social positions often in terms of a sacramental imagination or worldview.

I think you're quite right about that.

 

[CanadianAnglican]

This isn't the case, however. Among Continuing Anglicans, there is unanimity on this subject. Women's ordination is "out." The way each side comes to its conclusion may be different (tradition vs scripture) but the two agree on the standard and no genuine Continuing Anglican jurisdiction ordains women.

Interestingly enough, though, and if we consider Anglicans generally (not confining the discussion to Continuing Anglicans), it may be that Anglo-Catholics are more willing to yield on this point than are Evangelical Anglicans.

I think you slightly misunderstood my point, though you later comments suggest I was wrong in any event.

My point was to suggest that given it is unacceptable to continuing churches and the issue over which they left, I was trying to make the case that it would have potentially been more likely for Anglo-Catholics with a high view of the church and sacraments to leave, rather than evangelicals for whom it is a matter of interpretation of Scripture as to whether or not ordination of women is acceptable. More evangelicals, in my mind, would have been less likely to join the continuing movement in this event because there would be more flexibility for them over the issue. That wasn't to suggest that evangelicals that moved to the continuing movement didn't firmly oppose the ordination of women.

 

[Albion]

I think you slightly misunderstood my point, though you later comments suggest I was wrong in any event.

My point was to suggest that given it is unacceptable to continuing churches and the issue over which they left, I was trying to make the case that it would have potentially been more likely for Anglo-Catholics with a high view of the church and sacraments to leave, rather than evangelicals for whom it is a matter of interpretation of Scripture as to whether or not ordination of women is acceptable.

I'm trying to see the point there, but I'm not certain that I do. I agree that Catholics of any sort ought not succumb to the usual appeals Liberals make for ordaining women, but my reservation concerned the suggestion that Evangelicals might be more likely to accept women clergy.

They didn't do so, as we both know, but neither have I seen any willingness among Evangelical Anglicans to concede that there's anything in Scripture that would make for a good argument on behalf of women's ordination. You seem to be saying that anyone who is motivated by the idea of adhering to Scripture in such matters would have to admit that there are verses that cut one way and other verses that cut the other way. I don't know any Evangelicals who think that the arguments for women's ordination made by reference to Scripture "hold water' though, nor do I know of any myself.

As I recall, the closest that the Liberals came to that, during the debates in TEC, was to cite Galatians 3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Gentile...." which the traditionalists considered such a stretch that even the Liberals tended to give up on it in favor of non-Scriptural arguments.

If this still makes it seem like I didn't follow your point, I would have to assume that the point was rather that staying in TEC would have made more sense for Evangelicals for some reason...even though they disagreed with the decision to ordain women. (But I don't see the logic in that and I'm thinking that that was not your point.)

More evangelicals, in my mind, would have been less likely to join the continuing movement in this event because there would be more flexibility for them over the issue.

I'm sorry, but I don't see why you'd think that. Why "flexibility??"

 

[CanadianAnglican]

Maybe this is a cultural thing then? There are plenty of evangelicals in Canada and the United Kingdom who either accept or have been proponents of women's ordination on the basis of Scripture. NT Wright is an interesting example (perhaps not the best because some people view his position as being too liberal on some issues and thus not a proper evangelical) because even when you reject his arguments, essentially it's only reinforcing the point that it's all about personal interpretation.

Unless your opposition is further rooted in the traditions of the Church, in which you view what has been received as authoritative and inflexible in terms of innovations that have not been received by the whole Church to which the traditions belong, then it's easier to see how you might begin to view things like women's ordination as being less important as issues and perhaps not worth breaking communion over.

For instance, say you hold a Biblical interpretation of Scripture which says women ought not to be ordained, that God has chosen a male-only priesthood. As an evangelical, what is your view of the priesthood to begin with? What is their sacramental responsibility? If women get invited into the priesthood not by a correction of human error but by innovation of human hands, what is the problem?

Essentially what I'm saying is for evangelicals, I see three broad possibilities for the issue of women's ordination:

1) You are convinced by Biblical arguments, and even if you oppose the secular reasons put forth in the 70s at GS/GC you're not too worried about that so long as things remain Biblical. You have no reason to leave.

2) You are not convinced by Biblical arguments that women are called to ordination, and instead hold that the Bible says they are not. However, chances are you don't hold a particularly high view of the sacraments that sees them as being received from the Church. Perhaps to you, only the dominical sacraments matter. As an Anglican the invalidity of the priest is not an issue, and plenty of folks have such a low view of the sacrament of Holy Orders that it's not a particularly important matter regardless. In this case, you again aren't going to bother breaking communion.

3) You are opposed, on Biblical grounds, and furthermore the interpretation you hold says that because of this you cannot be under the authority of a woman priest or be part of a fellowship that allows it because it is too far removed from Holy Scripture. This probably requires an interpretation that goes beyond simply saying that God does not call women to the priesthood, but rather interprets "I do not permit a woman to speak" as meaning women cannot under any circumstances provide leadership in the church. There may also be some room in this category for those who don't quite go that far, but who somehow have an interpretation regarding the role of priestly leadership not allowing women meaning they need to leave.

When you take the high view of the Church, however, it doesn't matter what your Biblical interpretation is. You could accept Wright's arguments and support the ordination of women, or you could oppose it. If you truly hold to a high view of the sacraments, you wouldn't accept that the ACC or TEC has the authority to innovate and allow the ordination of women.

So when I suggest there's more flexibility in the evangelical spectrum all I mean is that what you believe about the issue of women's ordination itself is more important to your decision to stay or go. There may be one last position that ties into the second or third case and that's when you don't care too much about women's ordination, but you do see it as the thin edge of the wedge not on the basis of the Biblical issues, but on the basis of the lack of Biblical debate in the synods that approved women's ordination. Speaking particularly to Canada, there was a good deal of procedural subterfuge in terms of passing hte motion to approve women's ordination, and there was not a lot of debate over whether or not the Bible actually authorizes the ordination of women. In that sense you're leaving not because of women's ordination but because that issue proves that your fellowship no longer holds to the authority of Scripture and that over time the church will simply fall further and further away from true Biblical teaching.

Still, it feels less rigid for evangelicals than for Anglican Catholics.

 

[Albion]

Maybe this is a cultural thing then? There are plenty of evangelicals in Canada and the United Kingdom who either accept or have been proponents of women's ordination on the basis of Scripture.

Hmm. But they're not religious traditionalists or conservatives, right--even if they are not usually thought to be Anglo-Catholics? Among the Episcopalians who left for the Continuing Churches, I cannot remember there being any support for women's ordination.

And it's those people that this thread was supposed to be about.

Unless your opposition is further rooted in the traditions of the Church, in which you view what has been received as authoritative and inflexible in terms of innovations that have not been received by the whole Church to which the traditions belong, then it's easier to see how you might begin to view things like women's ordination as being less important as issues and perhaps not worth breaking communion over.

That may be the point on which this turns...and I disagree with your thesis.

The traditions of the Church, by which I think you mean the Catholic-like view of continuity, etc., ought to support the upholding of the male priesthood, but to hold to the authority of Scripture is just as firm a foundation and as historic.

For instance, say you hold a Biblical interpretation of Scripture which says women ought not to be ordained, that God has chosen a male-only priesthood. As an evangelical, what is your view of the priesthood to begin with?

About the same as yours, I'd think.

If women get invited into the priesthood not by a correction of human error but by innovation of human hands, what is the problem?

You say "by innovation of human hands," and you ask if there could be any problem with doing that instead of adhering to the position of Scripture and also of the church since its founding????????????

Essentially what I'm saying is for evangelicals, I see three broad possibilities for the issue of women's ordination:

1) You are convinced by Biblical arguments, and even if you oppose the secular reasons put forth in the 70s at GS/GC you're not too worried about that so long as things remain Biblical. You have no reason to leave.

You have no reason to leave a church that has abandoned Apostolic Succession and the Biblical standards concerning the ordained ministry????

2) You are not convinced by Biblical arguments that women are called to ordination, and instead hold that the Bible says they are not. However, chances are you don't hold a particularly high view of the sacraments that sees them as being received from the Church.

Wrong.

3) You are opposed, on Biblical grounds, and furthermore the interpretation you hold says that because of this you cannot be under the authority of a woman priest or be part of a fellowship that allows it because it is too far removed from Holy Scripture. This probably requires an interpretation that goes beyond simply saying that God does not call women to the priesthood, but rather interprets "I do not permit a woman to speak" as meaning women cannot under any circumstances provide leadership in the church.

No. There's not much precedent for such a view among Anglicans.

When you take the high view of the Church

Frankly, this seems to have taken on a confrontational and personal quality that ought not be part of our discussion. The constant calling of the Roman view of things a "high view" as though adherence to the historic standards of Anglicanism and the Bible as not "high" is something that should never have been part of this thread.

 

[Shane R]

I would just add that some of the continuing jurisdictions had much more low church presence in their infancy but all have trended high church with time. The Wikipedia figures put the size of the major jurisdictions in this order: Anglican Catholic Church, Anglican Province of Christ the King, Anglican Province of America, Anglican Church in America. If the Reformed Episcopal Church (it is unique in being an ACNA affiliate but also a signatory of the Bartonville Agreement) is counted it is the largest and also, generally, the most low church.

My own jurisdiction (orthodoxanglican.net) could make a claim to being the largest continuing jurisdiction, but most of its congregations and presence is in Africa. In the USA we have only ten parishes, 2-3 active missions, and a tiny Cistercian order.

 

[everbecoming2007]

If the Reformed Episcopal Church (it is unique in being an ACNA affiliate but also a signatory of the Bartonville Agreement) is counted it is the largest and also, generally, the most low church.

I've never seen the REC classified as a Continuing Jurisdiction. Aren't they different from most Anglicans anyway? I thought they tended in a more reformed direction than traditional Anglican evangelicals and have their own set of Articles.

 

[Shane R]

I've never seen the REC classified as a Continuing Jurisdiction. Aren't they different from most Anglicans anyway? I thought they tended in a more reformed direction than traditional Anglican evangelicals and have their own set of Articles.

Strictly speaking, they are not a continuing jurisdiction. However, some historical revisionists have liked to style them as the original continuing jurisdiction. For most of their recent history, they have had more to do with continuing jurisdictions than mainstream provinces. They do tend to be very theologically reformed but, in the near past, have made a space for Anglo-Catholics - though REC traditionalists have no use for it.

 

[Albion]

I would just add that some of the continuing jurisdictions had much more low church presence in their infancy but all have trended high church with time. The Wikipedia figures put the size of the major jurisdictions in this order: Anglican Catholic Church, Anglican Province of Christ the King, Anglican Province of America, Anglican Church in America. If the Reformed Episcopal Church (it is unique in being an ACNA affiliate but also a signatory of the Bartonville Agreement) is counted it is the largest and also, generally, the most low church.

My own jurisdiction (orthodoxanglican.net) could make a claim to being the largest continuing jurisdiction, but most of its congregations and presence is in Africa. In the USA we have only ten parishes, 2-3 active missions, and a tiny Cistercian order.

I'm not sure if there is any "trending" in that development. It's something that is almost as old as the Continuing Church movement itself. It is usually said that the majority of the laypersons from Canada and the USA who gathered at the Congress of St. Louis to found the new church were on the Low Church side, but the men selected to be the new bishops were Anglo-Catholics and Ritualists--and they made the new church be what they always thought Anglicanism ought to be.

The exception was Bp. Doren, the first bishop of the movement, who felt forced to break away and set up the United Episcopal Church, which is still considered basically the only practical choice for Continuing Anglicans of the Broad to Low Church view.

As for the Reformed Episcopal Church, it has moved away from much of its Low Church posture in the last few years, but it isn't a part of the Continuing Church movement by any definition of the term. It could be called a church that has a lot in common with the Continuers, however. It would be interesting to contemplate what might have happened had the REC tried to unite with the larger Continuing Anglican bodies instead of throwing its lot in with ACNA.

 

[Derwood Fetherbay]

Given that the continuing movement originally split over the ordination of women, that does make a bit more sense. There are certain Biblical arguments towards the ordination of women (see NT Wright, for example) but if you hold a high view of the sacraments and of Anglican Catholicity, the ordination of women is much more of a deal breaker for the simple fact that whatever might be permissible, the ordination of men only is the tradition which has been received by the Catholic Church, east and west, and therefore the Anglican Communion or parts thereof have no authority to alter that and innovate. We don't have our own sacraments, only those of the Catholic Church and they aren't ours to innovate.

That's my guess at any rate.

There are no biblical arguments for ordaining women in the New Testament! N.T. Wright is not an authority on this issue or Justification by faith! The N.T. is very clear on the subject: "Let the women learn in silence with all submission. I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to have authority over the man, but to be in silence. Paul goes on to give his reasons: 1. creation order, 2. the woman was deceived.... The qualifications of Bishops in Timothy and Titus are directed to males, "the husband of one wife," etc. The fact that the church has been ordaining men for 2000 years and that there is no reputable theologian that believes this, pulls a lot of weight! Those that usually want women ministers are most likely liberal and deny other cardinal doctrines of scripture!

 

[Paidiske]

Derwood, this is the Anglican forum. Each forum on CF has its own Statement of Purpose (see here: Statement of Purpose - Scripture, Tradition, Reason--Anglican & Old Catholic Statement of Purpose ). The Statement of Purpose of the Anglican forum does not allow non-Anglicans to debate issues or teach against our theology and practice.

Many Anglican provinces ordain women, and I know of at least two ordained Anglican women on CF. It is not appropriate for non-Anglicans to debate this matter in this forum.

I realise it's your first post, and it's easy to miss these details when you're new, so I hope that's helpful to you as you learn to find your way around the forums.

 

[mark46]

I would note that we are considered a very conservative province by almost all provinces of the AC. And we do indeed ordain women (not many).

We have joined ACNA, where there has been considerable ongoing discussion, and where this issue hasn't been solved.

My personal view is at odds with NT Wright. I understand and agree with the Tradition of having male bishops. I see much less of a need for a male priesthood. Wright says that we either ordain women or we don't. So, deacons, priests, bishops, and archbishops or no ordination at all.

 

[gordonhooker]

I tend to agree with N. T. Wright

 

[Shane R]

I agree with his conclusion if not his argument. It's an all or nothing proposition. Real world experience has proven over and over that provinces eventually drift into ordaining women to all three orders of ministry. Why the ACNA thinks she can defy gravity is much in discussion among American traditionalists. Some of our bishops look upon the recent ACNA decision, or lack thereof, as an incredible gift of stupidity.

There has been an outbound trickle for some time, despite the claims of some to the contrary. Now, it appears that trickle will become a stream. ACNA has other issues too: unchecked Pentecostalism, wide-spread disdain for a prayer book, and an apathy toward confirmation (and confession) in some constituencies.