Imagine you do not accept the consecration of women as bishops, and that your diocesan bishop is a female. Were you to find an orthodox Anglican priest with valid orders in your diocese, but who himself accepted the orders of the diocesan bishop, would you approach his Lord's Table (or Altar) in good conscience? Would you be witnessing to the validity of the invalid bishop by going to a priest who accepted her?
So, it is a question of personal conscience for you--whether to receive the Eucharist in a specific parish? within a specific diocese? And if you do go to a specific altar to receive communion--are you concerned that you are receiving an invalid communion? Who determines whether a communion is valid or invalid? As far as I know the question of a valid or invalid communion is Roman Catholic practice--not Anglican practice--and certainly not the Episcopal practice at my parish. At my Episcopal parish, the communion is valid if the person receiving the elements is a baptized Christian.
This is about conscience & public oaths. This rector told me that he believes the woman bishop is valid, and he could not serve as a priest under her if he thought otherwise. I am just wondering what you think, philosophically: if I receive H.C. from this rector, am I tacitly acknowledging the woman bishop who gives him permission to minister under her jurisdiction? I am concerned about this because I plan to always oppose the sexual equivalence of our day. If I am seen to receive Communion from a man who unequivocally accepts the female diocesan, where is my oath? Where is my conscience? Am I saying that I simply accept her? Interesting info about the Anglican idea of reception & validity, by the way.
Consular . . . Thank you for hanging on and explaining in detail the conscience / oath dilemma where you now find yourself. If I may, please allow me to offer my opinion a bit further. It seems you might want to look at this conscience dilemma from the logic perspective. If you plan to always oppose sexual equivalence among clergy, then follow your conscience and worship where your conscience feels comfortable--in a male oriented ecclesiastical model. I have personally worshiped in places against my conscience. Usually, this occurs when I acquire specific knowledge about a member of the clergy or someone who persists in sitting close to me in a nearby pew. Over the years, I have responded in such dilemmas by talking with the clergy member or other Christian, switching pews, visiting other churches for several weeks, and even switching my membership to a different parish. For me, this is not so much a gender or sexuality discomfort, as it is with some exterior manifestation such as the person's choice of words, voice, gestures, and even their hair. Yes, exterior manifestations can be quite a nuisance, particularly in places of worship. Now, after many decades of hopping around, I focus upon my pew--my sacred space--and my connection with God in my sacred space. I kneel, I pray, I sing, I stand, I genuflect out of praise for God and not out of some attempt to please others or satisfy some idea in my head or heart. I rarely seek out clergy for counsel because no matter how sincere, there is something that sticks in my craw after the counseling session. This is me--This is my pride--This is my sin. I find myself avoiding certain clergy and Christian individuals. Again this is my sin. I guess this is one of the major reasons I often prefer the way of the hermit, the monk. Of course, what I should do is pray for those that I feel uncomfortable around--and to look with spiritual eyes for the good these people say and do--and to encourage them in some way, to bless them in some way. I know this. Just talking the talk and walking the walk can be difficult. Let us pray for each other. I'll pray for you and you pray for me. AMEN.
Thank you for the well-considered reply, S.M. Such issues are hard things to contemplate and discuss without feeling like you look ridiculous. The only way I can conform to a male ecclesiastical model in my current State of Life, is to acknowledge only the (male) Suffragan Bishop as my authority, and the male Rector as my curate. The rector believes it would violate good conscience to serve his female diocesan while thinking she was not really a bishop; thus, I hope that by my open communicating under a rector who accepts the woman as bishop, I am not communicating a public oath to others that says women bishops are acceptable. Our witness and oath truly matters, for it may affect others in ways we don't imagine. What if, years from now, someone is conversing with me on this subject, and he's on the brink of accepting what I believe to be the biblical doctrine of male-headship, but then he learns that I communicated openly and freely in a diocese with a woman bishop, effectively offering my implicit assent toward her ministry? It would certainly destroy all credit to my position and perhaps scandalize him. This is what is meant by conscience here.
It's a difficult challenge. The fact is, one is on thin ice if one joins a church with female priests and bishops while not accepting the practice. The (female) bishop is the bishop in the eyes of the Church, and she has the responsibilities and authority that accompany that position. If we don't see her as the real bishop, how are we to interpret the situation? She still serves in that capacity. And if we join the Church anyway, perhaps because there is a suffragan, or because our rector was ordained by a male bishop, or because our parish is more orthodox than most...we still joined the Church. We still will face questions from others about "How can you join them when they do _____?". It is right to consider the meaning of membership vows and the implications of joining. Ultimately, one has to weigh the benefits of a good parish with a male rector vs. the risks of a woman taking his place, a woman replacing the current suffragan, and so on. Is it the current Anglican Church that one is joining, or is it an image of an Anglican past that is not coming back anytime soon?
As to questions like "how can you join them when they do X?", we must remember that Donatism is a heresy. Immorality, amorality, and ignorance do not make for an invalid church. My own answer would be "because they can be brought back". Good questions and thoughts, regardless, Pirate. One of my own thoughts has been that this woman may act as a bishop in office, but not sacramentally. By this, I mean that she may control finances, P.R., assignments, etc., but that she may not ordain, or do things proper to the clerical state. I may accept her as a "Controlling Officer" in my conscience, obeying non-priestly dictates & movements of her pen. It is not satisfactory, but it is the only way to avoid just becoming an atheist, a relativist, or a non-denominational non-episcopal hermit.
Oh yeah. I really was limiting "do X" to "ordain X." Should have been clear. If I were in your position, I would ponder, pray, consider, and then stick with my decision. The worst thing about Anglican conversion (in my experience) has been the second-guessing that sometimes accompanies it. If you are satisfied with the conclusions that you have reached, go for it and don't look back!
This seems the best position for a traditional anglican to take while staying in the communion and if I were an anglican would probably be the position I would take. I find this discussion interesting because as a traditional presbyterian I'm not in favour of female ministers either and yet we see it in different ways. The idea of a sacramentally valid priesthood is completely foreign to me, so I wouldn't have any qualms about taking communion from a female proiest or bishop for example (since I dont believe a minister is absolutely neccesary for it, although I think for general order of church affairs a church elder should preside over it in ordinary circumstances) Also I wouldnt have a problem with being in a church with a minister ordained by a female bishop since I don't believe in apostolic succession, or even that ministers have to be ordained by other ministers. Again I get the distinct impression that a female bishop is seen as being worse than say a divorced minister, or a bishop who doesnt believe in the resurection. Whereas for me I would see them equally so, If one disqualifies one from a bishophric, then the others must be so too. In fact I would rather go to a church with an orthodox (ie believes in the basic christan doctrines) female minister than a church with a minister who doesnt believe the resurrection (even if he preaches the church position in the services)
For now I am fully supportive of female clergy. However, the strongest argument I have seen against it is among the Eastern Orthodox Church; it stated that the reason the Orthodox are not in favor of female clergy comes by simply looking at the example of Jesus Who did not choose a female apostle. Then it was stated that the primary reason that those in the Western Church were opposed to female clergy was misogyny. If we simply address Western misoginy, and reject female clergy on the grounds of adherence to our Lord and Savior, I might get behind the idea.