…who are deeply opposed to women’s ordination.
Why are you still Anglican?
Seriously. The bishops of the Anglican church, including many global south bishops, have concluded that the ordination of women is a non-issue for the Anglican communion. Women are ordained in many Anglican provinces, and have been for years. The church of England is paving the way for women bishops (which makes sense considering they have had women priests since 1992). The Episcopal church has insisted that every diocese accept women’s ordination, whether they like it or not. I think that women’s ordination is a foregone conclusion in Anglicanism, accepted (or at least tolerated) by most Anglicans worldwide who are either progressive (in the West) or evangelical (in the developing world). Even many “conservative” Anglicans support women’s ordination and sometimes have harsh words for those other conservatives who oppose WO. Those in Anglicanism who oppose women’s ordination often come across as angry and bitter, and are becoming a smaller and smaller minority. So…why stick around? I ask this as someone who is generally curious.
Let me note that I have no official stats on the future of WO in Anglicanism. It is just that comments on blogs as of late (and the reasons I mentioned above) have convinced me that any future Anglicanism, conservative or liberal, is going to include women’s ordination. I just wonder where die-hard Anglo-Catholics fit in is all.
David Bennett
Jennifer
asimplesinner
Fr. J.
Chad Toney
Jorge Flores
Jonathan B
carmelbennett
nicenehobbit
Jason S
jaybird68
papaz
February 14, 2006 at 2:19 pm
You have asked a great question, and one which has consequences beyond the issue of women’s ordination. There is probably neither time or space to go into an exhaustive examination of why such people are still Anglican. But I think it’s safe to say (in broad strokes) that for such people, change is horribly difficult. Although Roman Catholicism would be a wonderful fit for them, they fear both leaving Anglicanism and entering Catholicism. The details of that broad statement would make for interesting discussion. Let me know if you would like to pursue that further or if your question was more rhetorical.
Grace and peace,
Bill Curnutte
February 14, 2006 at 8:09 pm
I’ve thought about this a bit, and though I am not Anglican, I think the question still broadly applies to us Augsburgers of the Evanglical-Catholic stripe who struggle with the state of the ELCA.
Put most succinctly, I am not Roman Catholic because I do not accept the idea that it is THE church to the exclusion of other Christian bodies. Women’s ordination, though I am not overly thrilled about it, is not a make or break deal for me.
February 14, 2006 at 11:41 pm
I was thinking that it was fear of change for many Anglicans who have stayed on, but what more change can you get in regards to a gay bishops, gay marriages and womens ordination?
I believe women have their special roles in the Church, and father figures is not one of them.
Did Jesus ordain women in the apostles he selected?
If Jesus wanted a priestess i’m sure he would have ordained Mary.
February 15, 2006 at 2:30 am
Bill and Robb,
Thanks for your responses.
When I posed the question I wasn’t even trying to imply that they should be catholic, although I think that is the logical choice (Orthodox would work too). I was just wondering the mindset behind remaining an embattled minority. It can really stink after awhile, lol, and a person can become battle-weary and resort to a fortress like mentality.
February 15, 2006 at 1:58 pm
David -
I knew you weren’t out to convert us…or were you? ;-)
I think Anglicans and Lutherans are in a slightly diffent though closely related boat. WO does not upset me in principal. I think there are a number of very orthodox and faithful women serving at our altars. There are also a number of very heterodox women, as there are men. I do confess to having a very uneasy feeling when I see a woman in a collar or in vestments.
As you know well, I have struggled with the conversion issue since our seminary days. I have considered the Anglican Continuum, Rome, and Orthodoxy. Each poses a different set of issues. I hold all three in high esteem as expressions of the true church. What sticks out to me is that I am going to be an “embattled minority” in those as well. How do you choose one ghetto over another?
February 15, 2006 at 8:18 pm
Here in Appalachia, you go down the road to the mouth of the next holler and start your own church in the abandoned gas station there. ;-)
February 17, 2006 at 5:55 am
short answer: i guess using the unified church model from the patristic period when ecumenical councils determined the mind of Christ for the Church regarding disputed matters of faith a person might conclude . . . that theological uniformity is not required by necessity for authentic biblical unity to occur . . .