Third Female "Bishop" Consecrated in GAFCON

Discussion in 'Anglican and Christian News' started by Carolinian, Sep 15, 2021.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,723
    Likes Received:
    2,563
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Agreed. There are three irrefutable arguments against WO, all of which impede the mission of the church and disqualify those who engage in it from being Churches.
    -Scripture (most of all)
    -Tradition and apostolic succession. The Lambeth quadrilateral, etc
    -natural law, the inescapable gulf between nature of women and men, and the corollary metaphysical consequences we draw about God the Father and the Trinity and everything else which stems out of this nature.

    Kenya was a victim of the East African revival in the 1920s, which imprinted an unwholesome trace of radical gnostic revivalism upon their theology. “Nothing visible or material matters! Having the spirit is all that’s needed!”

    Of course Scripture still stands athwart their new ideology, even if they’ve dispensed with tradition and natural law. I don’t know how they manage to get around scripture.

    That plus the colonial affection for Britain means they’re very squishy on anything which the Church of England (the modern messed up version of it) has stamped with approval.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2021
    Shane R and bwallac2335 like this.
  2. JoeLaughon

    JoeLaughon Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    363
    Likes Received:
    320
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    ACNA
    Given the abysmal state of orthodoxy within many members in "good standing" in the Canterbury Communion, I cannot say that impresses me very much.

    My point here is this: it is not those who make separation over error de facto who are being divisive but rather those who make separation de juro through their error.
     
    Carolinian and Stalwart like this.
  3. Invictus

    Invictus Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,678
    Likes Received:
    1,484
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    Whether there is an error over which to separate is itself a disputed matter. If there isn’t one, then those pushing a separatist agenda anyway are the ones lacking justification. One can’t stop such things from occurring, but one can refuse to participate in sectarian squabbles.
     
  4. JoeLaughon

    JoeLaughon Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    363
    Likes Received:
    320
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    ACNA
    Then the issue is quite simple: purposefully violating both the Scriptures & the Catholic tradition is in fact an error, ergo it is those pushing error that are creating separatism, not those who recognize the already existing separation.
     
    Othniel, Carolinian and Stalwart like this.
  5. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,723
    Likes Received:
    2,563
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I also honestly think we overlook the natural law argument. It’s not as if malehood is an arbitrary restriction, perhaps uniform in church history sure, but nevertheless irrelevant (or even unjust).

    No it has manifold natural consequences, not very different from women in the army or in the police. It irrevocably leads to feminization of the previously-muscular institution, and forces all the best men out.

    It also radically impedes our relationship to God as FATHER. Or as I heard him referred to recently, “God the mother, she who gave birth to all of creation.” That is inevitable, (and the loss of salvation which results from it,) if we lose our natural conception of sex, and gender, and the Church, and Divinity. The stakes literally could not be higher.
     
    JoeLaughon likes this.
  6. Invictus

    Invictus Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,678
    Likes Received:
    1,484
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    In principle, I would tend to agree. The question of course is whether such a violation had occurred in actual fact. And that in turn relies not only upon exegetical questions but also varying theories of the basis of the Christian ministry itself.
     
  7. Invictus

    Invictus Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,678
    Likes Received:
    1,484
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    In the effort to avoid an imagined heresy, such statements come perilously close to subscribing to an actual one, viz., by assuming that biological descriptors apply literally to God (contrary to the whole Christian Tradition of theology).
     
  8. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,723
    Likes Received:
    2,563
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Straw man. They apply substantially. Unless you would like to say that any words in the Our Father were irrelevant or inconsequential. And unless you would like to overturn the Biblical anthropology which proposes to us man, rather than woman, as the author of life and generation. (See the Creeds, "who proceedeth from the Father"). And which proposes that man is the highest authority among those who pertain to him. See Adam, see Christ, see David, Abraham, David. The patriarchs. There are no matriarchs. Manhood is attached to spiritual authority, literally in natural creatures like us, and analogically but substantially to the Trinity itself (father, son, and holy ghost each of them masculine). That is according to the Scriptures and to the Holy Ghost (not to speak of the other pillars: 3000 years of tradition and natural law).
     
    Othniel, Carolinian and JoeLaughon like this.
  9. Invictus

    Invictus Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,678
    Likes Received:
    1,484
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    On the contrary, they apply analogically at best. The word ‘Father’ in itself is a relative term, not a substantive. It is, however, said substantially of God, owing to the divine simplicity, yet shorn of any creaturely limitations (including biological ones) implied by the term. What is left is the formality of the bare relation of timeless origination (which is itself ineffable and beyond comprehension according to the Fathers). To deny this is to assume that God is corporeal and has parts, something the Christian tradition of theology has always forthrightly denied. It is therefore not legitimate to reason from the attributes of a sexless God to gender-specific roles in his creatures. Only biology and law can do that, descriptively (in the case of the former), or prescriptively (in the case of the latter).

    Whether there are or are not matriarchs is a matter of opinion and perspective. Certainly, Rebekah, Rachel, etc., could be considered such. The notion that they must not be is certainly a novel one to me.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2021
  10. JoeLaughon

    JoeLaughon Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    363
    Likes Received:
    320
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    ACNA
    Easy, it has. When one invalidly ordains someone against both Scripture & Tradition that's quite an easy conclusion to come to.
     
    Carolinian likes this.
  11. Invictus

    Invictus Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,678
    Likes Received:
    1,484
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    The question is whether such an ordination is, in fact, invalid.

    The NT has very little to say about ecclesiology, or specific ecclesial offices. It says nothing at all about ‘sacramental validity’. I think we can infer from the relevant texts that an ‘ordained’ leader ought to be baptized, at the very least. Certainly, the Reformation-era Confessions are clear that the office and authority of the Christian Ministry resides in the Church as a whole, in every baptized member, rather than in something set above the Church.

    All the defined dogmas of the undivided Church pertained to the Person of Christ, viz., his relation to God (the Father), and his relation to human beings (especially his Mother). None related to ecclesial offices or to the sacraments.

    Otherwise, what we call “tradition” in this instance is simply continuous custom, which does not appear to have a solid theoretical basis. Arguments from reason - which implies the validity of the consent and consensus of the Church - are thoroughly appropriate within a properly Anglican context.
     
    Botolph likes this.
  12. JoeLaughon

    JoeLaughon Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    363
    Likes Received:
    320
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    ACNA
    We are going to have to disagree on this. Paul's words on who is a presbyter, deacon or bishop seem very clear. Additionally the precedent of a male-only priesthood in the Old Covenant and Christ ordaining the Apostles and the 72 as men only give us more insight.

    The reason why tradition is so helpful is twofold;

    1) Who is more likely to correctly interpret the Scriptures received? Those receiving it in their language, their context from the Apostles or ourselves coming from a different context, in a different language second hand? This is why Tradition is so helpful. If there is a uniform consensus on Scripture, it provides the necessary context to how to read Scripture. We know what that uniform consensus of the Church has been and it's not quite kind to the WO advocacy.
    2) More importantly, we are told that the Church has a Helper to guide us. It is incredible to imagine that Christ meant for His Church to be governed in a certain way and for the better part of the 2,000 years (indeed for most to this day) we are all disobedient except for a small fringe of one third of the Church catholic (and in a major, possibly miraculous coincidence, said revelation of ordination is revealed to us just as the secular worldview at the same time agrees with it, truly an amazing development). Was the Holy Ghost just asleep at the wheel?
     
  13. Invictus

    Invictus Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,678
    Likes Received:
    1,484
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    If this is a reference to 1 Timothy, then I think we need to be careful regarding attributions, because the scholarly consensus now is that Paul did not write 1 Timothy (though it is, of course, certainly part of the canon). But that is more of a side issue.

    The real problem with precedents is that not all precedents are necessarily binding. A new situation has to belong to the same category as that to which the precedent originally applied, in order for that precedent to be applicable to the new situation in question. In this case, I think the Reformers - Anglican and Continental alike - were clear that in no sense is the Christian Ministry a priesthood, analogous to that of the Mosaic sacrificial system. The LXX’s term for such priests - hieros - is never used in the NT to refer to a minister of the Gospel, and ministers of the Gospel are never presented in the NT as sacrificing officiants. That role is reserved for Christ alone (cf. Epistle to the Hebrews). It also seems reasonably clear from the levitical regulations themselves that the reason women were not eligible for the Aaronic priesthood had to do with matters of ritual purity, over which women at that time did not have complete control, and which is a category that is absent from historic Christian belief and practice.

    So, not everything that we might say about the Aaronic priesthood necessarily applies to the Christian Ministry, and whatever precedents do apply surely terminate in Christ personally (as the unique Mediator between God and human beings), rather than corporately. I’ve never personally been convinced that the issue is as clear-cut as those opposed to WO seem to think it is, and for the sake of intellectual honesty I was forced to admit this even when I belonged to a communion that did not allow WO. There are a lot of assumptions built into the anti-WO argument that simply turn out to be problematic under further inspection.
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2021
  14. Shane R

    Shane R Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,138
    Likes Received:
    1,181
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglican
  15. Ananias

    Ananias Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    842
    Likes Received:
    706
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    ACNA
    "Scholarly consensus" is not only wrong, but also grounded in bad-faith arguments and (frankly) terrible Biblical scholarship. There is no good reason to think that 1 Timothy was written by anyone other than Paul. Christian scholarly consensus -- both historic and current -- is that 1 Timothy is a Pauline letter. As such it carries Apostolic authority.

    As to precedents being binding, there is a (I think deliberate) obfuscation among liberals that Paul was somehow only speaking in response to a specific situation in the Asia Minor churches at the time, and then only to those specific churches. His pastoral advice to Timothy (so they say) is specific and not plenary. But the faultiness of this theory is made plain not only from other of Paul's letters that emphasize essentially the same exact points (1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, and Titus). Peter also affirms these precepts himself in, e.g., 1 Peter 3:1-7.

    Paul frequently refers to the church as a "body" (or family) with Christ as the head. Paul also makes it clear that marriages are to model Christ's relationship to the Church (Eph. 5:32). Males are called to lead the family as Christ leads the church. Within the church, males assume pastoral duties in persona Christi -- as Christ is the groom and his bride is the church, a woman cannot fill this role. But more than that, Paul gives a general and plenary reason that women cannot assume pastoral duties over men in 1 Tim. 2:12: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control." This is not a specific restriction to a specific church at a specific time; it is a plenary instruction for the conduct of a church service. If the restriction was specific, Paul would have given a specific rather than a general prohibition against it.

    The "household codes" that both Peter and Paul express in their respective letters are intended to instruct Christians on how to conduct ordered and Godly lives according to God's plan -- in church, in public, and at home. Yes, Paul had high regard for women in his ministry; yes, he gave a certain amount of authority to some like Priscilla, Lydia, Junia, and Phoebe -- but there is not one morsel of evidence anywhere that women were given pastoral duties over congregations that included adult males. Scripture clearly prohibits it. And just because it's now Current Year and lots of people feel differently, it doesn't change Biblical teaching on the issue.

    I realize that in this egalitarian age this rubs some the wrong way, but so be it. The Bible does not teach egalitarianism, either in church service or in marriage.
     
    Carolinian and Othniel like this.
  16. Invictus

    Invictus Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,678
    Likes Received:
    1,484
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    I’m not a biblical scholar. On that and other subjects on which I lack expertise of my own, the intellectually honest route as I see it is to rely on the expertise of others. The state of scholarship is what it is. That Timothy was not written by Paul is near universally accepted in the academic world, Christian and secular; i.e., it’s not my own opinion that I’m relying on to make that statement, and I’m not a fundamentalist, so I don’t know what else to tell you about that. Obviously, a NT writing does not need to have been written by Paul to be considered ‘apostolic’ or canonical.

    The ‘precedent’ I was referring to was that of the Aaronic priesthood of the Mosaic covenant, and I think I dealt with that sufficiently in my previous post.

    Whoever wrote 1 Timothy was giving his (or her?) opinion. It was an authoritative opinion, but still an opinion. The apostles’ equal commission did not prevent them from disagreeing, sometimes bitterly so. No one apostle was infallible, and it’s not legitimate to extrapolate from just one opinion rendered at a particular time and place to a general principle valid for all persons, times, and places. One needs quite a bit more than that to claim a true consensus on a matter. Even if there were one, that would not bind future generations of the Church to the extent that they could not form a new consensus on the matter. The Council of Nicea is a good example of this. So is Chalcedon. Now, if one wants to assume that the author of 1 Timothy had ordinary universal jurisdiction, then you’re already halfway to Rome at that point, but I don’t think anyone here really wants to take that route.

    What I sincerely hope my separated brethren will come to realize at some point is that the WO issue is rooted not in Scripture or tradition but in the ongoing consensus and consent of the Church, a consent that opponents of WO feel was violated (and perhaps it was). It is unfortunate that emotions ran strongly enough on the subject on both sides to cause a major rift, but obviously the clock cannot be turned back on that now. The whole episode certainly provides much material for reflection on how to properly go about reform that a significant portion of the Church felt was necessary, and surely there is some cause for regret on both sides. What isn’t helpful at this point is to raise the status of the issue beyond what Scripture, tradition, and the collective reason of the Church warrant. There is simply no justification whatsoever for people to label each other “heretics” over the issue, or to claim that ordained bishops aren’t really bishops, as though they know where the Holy Spirit does and does not operate. That kind of language is just not helpful and does nothing to promote a spirit of reconciliation.
     
    Botolph likes this.
  17. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,723
    Likes Received:
    2,563
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    That's right. But the ensuing question quickly arises: how do you select the experts? That's what makes the difference, as Ananias was trying to point out to you. Christian scholars will tell a very different tale from heathen scholars.

    That's simply factually incorrect. Michael Kruger is one of world's leading NT and canon experts, with conclusions radically different from the ones you've presented. It's just unfortunate that you have chosen to take the heathen scholars as your authority.

    The New (as well as Old) Testament is God-breathed. It is no one's opinion, but is the very Gospel itself, the singular word God chose to speak in the entire history of the world, whose revelation to the prophets and apostles throughout the ages was inspired by the (masculine) Holy Ghost.
     
    Rexlion and Carolinian like this.
  18. Invictus

    Invictus Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,678
    Likes Received:
    1,484
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    Rubbish. Scholarship is scholarship, whether it’s “heathen” or Christian. A Christian meteorologist has no greater ability to predict the weather than a secular one, nor is a secular scholar less capable of examining manuscript evidence and testing historical theories than a Christian scholar. And I would hardly call Raymond Collins, Martin Dibelius, or E.P. Sanders - among others - “heathen” scholars whose works aren’t worth careful study. Sanders, especially, is a giant in the field of Pauline studies, and has been for decades. There are indeed plenty of passages in the Scriptures that directly quote God; 1 Timothy, however, is not one of them. It is unwarranted to assume that passages of the Scriptures which their authors clearly attribute to themselves are nonetheless direct quotations of God. The Bible is not analogous to the Qur’an in that respect, viz., in which all passages are in the first person, directed from God to the writer. The Scriptures are indeed inspired by God and contain words spoken by God, but that is not the same thing as treating every passage of Scripture alike as a direct divine quotation. By retreating behind a militant, anti-intellectual fundamentalism and making the usual ad hominem attacks that do nothing except signal which ‘tribe’ you belong to, you’ve managed to completely miss the larger - and irenic - point of what I was saying.
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2021
  19. Matthew J Taylor

    Matthew J Taylor Member

    Posts:
    88
    Likes Received:
    80
    Country:
    Scotland
    Religion:
    Free Church of England
    I have written to my bishop, the Most Reverend John Fenwick, Bishop Primus of the FCE, on this matter and its potential impact on the FCE's ongoing relationship with GAFCON and the GAFCON member churches.
    He is going to speak with me this coming week on the matter and I'm happy to report back here any interesting news.

    I am gravely concerned for the future of orthodox Anglicanism if we are to find that the Global South fails to prove itself the bulwark we had so hoped in the fight against the crypto-Asherah worship found in the modern communion.
     
  20. Ananias

    Ananias Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    842
    Likes Received:
    706
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    ACNA
    That is incorrect. Bart Ehrman is a great example of a superb biblical scholar who uses his skills to undermine and subvert Christian teaching. His scholarship on the subject has suffered as a result: believers (and Christian scholars of world reputation) like Dan Wallace, William Lane Craig, and Bill Mounce have rebutted his assertions for years now, but Ehrman ignores it all and continues trading on his (former) academic reputation to advance his anti-Christian agenda. Ehrman is typical of a lot of non-Christian scholars these days -- his scholarship is hostile, agenda-driven, and meant to inflict damage; it is not meant to inform or enlighten.

    Secular scholarship in America -- and probably in the wider western world -- is a pale shadow of what it was even thirty years ago (and it was declining even then). The humanities and softer sciences are complete wastelands at this point (who even teaches actual Classics any more?). Even the hard sciences are becoming corrupted. As males continue to abandon higher education in the face of relentless hostility, colleges are turning into finishing-schools for liberal upper-crust young women. Grades go up and up; actual achievement and mastery of the material declines precipitously. Bachelor's degrees are the functional equivalent of a high school diploma in previous times; a Master's is the minimum requirement for many professional jobs these days. Yet employers still complain that new employees lack essential skills in reading comprehension, writing, critical thinking, and problem-solving.

    The rot has metastasized to the seminaries as well, and I speak with some authority here, having witnessed it with my own eyes. You should see some of the half-literate gibberish graduate students turn in. Mastery of biblical languages has been on the decline for years, and many seminaries have either removed language requirements entirely or watered them down (many Koine Greek or Hebrew courses now are "pass/fail" rather than graded). Online courses often amount to little more than open-book multiple-choice quizzes.

    If you think I'm exaggerating here, just read some of the papers coming out of colleges and seminaries these days. Much of it is simply Current Day "diversity/equity/inclusion" garbage, "autoethnographies" that are little better than angst-ridden diary entries, and "edgy" think-pieces written by postgrads and adjuncts desperately seeking tenure somewhere. There is no organization in the world more trend- and agenda-driven than college campuses, yet in spite of the vasty ocean of "scholarship" they produce, very little of actual value emerges. (Academic publishing reminds me of the old days when many offices would simply direct the output of the public fax machine directly into the garbage can.) Peer-review is hilariously corrupt (just read the Retraction Watch website for some real insight into how academic publishing really works).

    "Modern Scholarship" is almost entirely garbage*. It does not deserve the respect or deference given to it, and it is one of my most fervent prayers that the entire rotten edifice crumbles to dust before I pass away from this earth so I can see it die with my own eyes.

    *There is a very small percentage of good, worthwhile, even ground-breaking work being done. But the good stuff is a daisy on top of a giant mountain of utter garbage.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.