Williams admits doubts over ordination of women

[Iosias]

See here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2455940.html).

[AngCath]

did you actually read that article?

[karen freeinchristman]

Typical media spin and hype.

There was another piece on this specific interview on BBC radio 4, look here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6153182.stm).

[Aymn27]

did you actually read that article?
I read it - and while he says he's strongly for it, he sounds rather lack-luster and admits that it could be revisited. The way I took it actually - was that is was sort of aimed at relationship with the Roman church and saying, we could change our mind - maybe.

I find it interesting that he was "honest" in saying that it did NOT cause some sort of renewal or burst of growth in the church (as I think those in favor had thought it would)...

[gtsecc]

I read it - and while he says he's strongly for it, he sounds rather lack-luster and admits that it could be revisited. The way I took it actually - was that is was sort of aimed at relationship with the Roman church and saying, we could change our mind - maybe.

I find it interesting that he was "honest" in saying that it did NOT cause some sort of renewal or burst of growth in the church (as I think those in favor had thought it would)...
That was carefully worded. It did end all talks with the Orthodox and Roman Catholics. Even he would agree that we were headed for reunion with the Orthodox in the early 70's and most thought reunion by the 80's.

[SumTinWong]

I reunion with the Orthodox? i am confused, I thought that the church of England split from the Roman church. How can you reunite with someone you were not united with in the first place?

[gtsecc]

I reunion with the Orthodox? i am confused, I thought that the church of England split from the Roman church. How can you reunite with someone you were not united with in the first place?
From the time missionaries landed in what is now the British Isles, until around 1066, we were not in schism with anyone, accept maybe the Copts.

[SumTinWong]

I also gotta tell anyone interested that if the orthodox and rc want to join the Anglican church I have no problems with this, but to attempt the other direstion would lead to at least one less member of our church. I bring this up because the article talks about "a chill" from the Vatican if a female becomes a Bishop. Hey Vatican, mind your own is my response. But that is just me . . .

[SumTinWong]

From the time missionaries landed in what is now the British Isles, until around 1066, we were not in schism with anyone, accept maybe the Copts.
You say we, but we did not become a seperate entity until we left the RC correct? That was my point. There was not an Anglican church as we know it now, then. Correct?

[gtsecc]

You say we, but we did not become a seperate entity until we left the RC correct? That was my point. There was not an Anglican church as we know it now, then. Correct?
hmm... I am not sure I agree with that at all. Yes, there have been many changes, but I think there is clear continuity from the first missionaries until now. If there isn't, then we are not part of the church and will have to decide weather we are to be Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.

[SumTinWong]

Those are not the only two options are they? If so I pick none of the above and declare my free agency. No disrespect intended, please understand if i thought either were THE church i would be there. If I thought a combination of either were the church I would want unification, but I think the church lies somewhere in the middle, which I believe is here.

[SumTinWong]

hmm... I am not sure I agree with that at all. Yes, there have been many changes, but I think there is clear continuity from the first missionaries until now. If there isn't, then we are not part of the church and will have to decide weather we are to be Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.
Somebody please correct me if I am wrong.

We left the RC who left the unified church in around 1066. When we left the RC we were in schsim with the Orthodox as RC. I thought the point of Anglicanism was that they did not believe the RC had the right to hold authority over the Anglican communion? No?I am a yank so maybe that is why this is confusing.

[gtsecc]

If they never had that sort of authority over us, we were never part of them, so we couldn't leave something we never agreed to.

[gtsecc]

Jesus set up a Church governed by Bishops.
All the authority is in the Bishops.
Our denial of the papacy is grounded in Gregory the Great, who clearly lambasted his Bishops when they called him Pope. He made it clear the authority is in the Bishops, and they, by calling him Pope, undermined the authority of Bishops, which Gregory said we could not do an be true to the Church set up by Christ. Synodality does mean we need a primate, but it is for the good for the order in running councils, not for making doctrine.

[JasonV]

I also gotta tell anyone interested that if the orthodox and rc want to join the Anglican church I have no problems with this, but to attempt the other direstion would lead to at least one less member of our church.

Make that two.

[gtsecc]

I am not advocating we submit to everything at all.
But, I am adocating that we actively seek to move towards one visible body in communion - that means all Christians, Orthodox, Catholic, and even baptists, etc...

[SumTinWong]

I am not advocating we submit to everything at all.
But, I am adocating that we actively seek to move towards one visible body in communion - that means all Christians, Orthodox, Catholic, and even baptists, etc...
Well now that i would stand behind in a second :)

[DeoJuvante]

From the article: 'The fact that he has had any doubts at all on the issue will send shock waves through the Church of England’s liberal elite.'

Liberal elite? Is this what passes for neutrality in the British media?

[kiwimac]

Is this what passes for neutrality in the British media

Apparently.

The ordination of women may have done little for the Church of England but it has had a tremendous effect here in NZ.

Perhaps ++Williams should consider the entirety of the Anglican Communion rather than just the C of E. Oh and I also would leave if we were about to be untied with the RCC or the OC.

Rev. Ray McIntyre,
Priest
Anglican Church International

[SumTinWong]

I gotta tell you the ordination of women in the Episcopal church turned my wife's head, and now she LOVES going to church with me on Sunday, and love's the Lord! So it has an effect on our house.

I love that we can have the choice in our parish.

[JoshuaCh1v9]

This may or may not be relevent to the discussion

It also may be way off the mark in terms of being right. I just thoiught about it.

But it seems that, as Priests are employees of the church, and as the church has made a decision to accept women as Priests, they would be in severe breach of the 1975 (?) Sex Discrimination Act if they then tried to reverses this decision.

The law suits would bankrupt the church.

Whether people like the idea or not, this door, once opened, is not going to be closed again

Ever.

[Simon_Templar]

Those are not the only two options are they? If so I pick none of the above and declare my free agency. No disrespect intended, please understand if i thought either were THE church i would be there. If I thought a combination of either were the church I would want unification, but I think the church lies somewhere in the middle, which I believe is here.
The church was all united until 1054 AD. Prior to that the EO, the RCC, and the Anclican church were all one church.

In 1054 the EO and the RCC split apart formally (although significant disagreements had been brewing for some time.

The church at that time was organized around the 5 patriarchs as the highest church officials. The only patriarch in western Europe was the Pope.

However, England was far enough removed politically and socially that its church was, in practice, largely independant from Rome's direct influence.

When the Normans invaded in 1066 and conquered England, they brought the Anglican church under the direct control of Rome. From that time on, the Anglican church was seperated from the Eastern Orthodox, as was Rome.

Then of course under Henry VIII and the succeeding monarchs the church of England split from Rome, making it seperate from both Rome and the East, whereas originally they had all been one.

Thus it is correct to speak of RE-unification because we were at one time, unified.

However, when it comes to speaking of re-unification with the east, it doesn't mean the same thing as it does with Rome. re-unification with Rome necessarily (at this point) means an organizational reunion because being subject to the Pope is item #1 on Rome's list of requirements for unity.

In the case of the east there is no over arching central authority or even heirarchy that the Anglican chruch would have to become part of. It would more be a mutual recognition of orders and communion. In other words Eastern Orthodox would recognize Anglican clergy as validly ordained and Anglican sacraments as valid etc.

So in that sense unity with the east doesn't really mean assimiltion, so much as just mutual communion and fellowship.

At least that is how I see it.

[Fairbairn]

The Church in England has always been a mixed bag, right from the moment that Christianity arrived in these isles, and nothing to do with Henry VIII and the Reformation.

At every stage in the church's history, there have been tensions between sacramentalists and evangelical. Any 'reunification' which puts us under a single authority will always be a non-starter. It's just not Anglican. We are local, flexible and distinctive - that is our story, that is our song.

[TomUK]

This may or may not be relevent to the discussion

It also may be way off the mark in terms of being right. I just thoiught about it.

But it seems that, as Priests are employees of the church, and as the church has made a decision to accept women as Priests, they would be in severe breach of the 1975 (?) Sex Discrimination Act if they then tried to reverses this decision.

The law suits would bankrupt the church.

Whether people like the idea or not, this door, once opened, is not going to be closed again

Ever.

Actually Andy you are mistaken. There was an act of parliament in 1912 which says that Priests are employed by God and are therefore are outside the the jurisdiction of the courts in matters such as these.

[Fairbairn]

I heard two news reports of what Rowan Williams said. The first one, it reported that he said that the introduction of women priest did not bring about the revival that was hoped. The second one, it said that the CofE was thinking about reversing the decision.

Bear in mind that he said this in advance of a visit to the Vatican, and so was pandering to Roman sensibilities.

My own view is that the women priests have gone almost exclusively into liberal parishes - the same ones that have been suffering from a lack of male clergy. Women have filled a much needed role.

I know that in my own deanery, women priests are in the least desirable churches - I don't know how to say this in a politically correct way and I am fairly ashamed of even writing this. But it is difficult to argue with reality. In our deanery, we have 3 evangelical parishes, 1 anglo-catholic, and about 6 broad church. The women are all in the broad church parishes.

I believe that if you are having declining electoral rolls, a lack of incumbent is going to make the situation worse and send things into free fall. An injection of clergy, via women priests, is bound to help with any immediate problems, but is not going to halt any underlying decline.

My church has been helped by women priests during our recent interregnum. They have all been lovely. Unfortunately, their normal parish life is ministering to congregations of around 20 rather than 500, so very few get to see how wonderful they are.

The other place where I have seen women priests in action is in diocesan jobs, and I have to say that I have been extremely impressed. If my diocese is representative of the Cof E (and there's no reason to think it is not), then we are getting very good value out of our women priests.

In the CofE, you have a situation very like that of Doctors and Nurses. If you are going to have any influence and leadership, you have to be a doctor - ie, you have to be ordained. Women have equal opportunities for leadership and influence at diocesan level as far as I am concerned (and I am aware of all the pastoral arguments against women priests). So on a political, rather than a pastoral level, women priests should enjoy a level playing field.

[gtsecc]

Let’s say you are liberal, and for the female priesthood, as I am.
How can you say it has not hurt the Episcopal Church?
Most all the Anglicans groups that left in the last 30 years split over this issue.
Even if you think women priest are for the good of the church, what good does it do if people leave over it? You are faced with the reality that splitting the church in half - those who accept them, and those that don't, for the most part, didn't change anyone's mind, it just split the group. So, it didn’t really advance the female priesthood in the Anglican Communion, and it confirmed Roman Catholic and Orthodox stances. They certainly didn’t go “Oh, look how great this worked for the Anglicans! Let’s give it a go in our Church and risk blowing it up!” So, if you are for the female priesthood, you can historically see that ordaining them has ironically was hurt the cause.
Rome pleaded with us, "Don't do it. It will hurt the Church."
The Orthodox pleaded with us, "Don't do it. It will hurt the Church."
Now all of you are saying, we don’t care what they think. But, that is miss guided, we are all Christians and what we do affects all of us.
Let me put it another way. If some group comes up with new doctrine, it doesn’t change anything if the rest of Christendom doesn’t recognize them as Christian.
Pre 1970, what Anglicans did was respected by Protestants, Roman Catholic, and the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox. This gave us influence in their theological circles. Now, these groups are starting to not even recognize us as Christians. So, the net effect is setting back the female priesthood for hundreds of years.

[kiwimac]

No Gtsecc,

It is not misguided. Between the misogyny of the Catholics and the Cultural 'superiority' of most EO churches I would just as soon be Anglican.

Moreover, so what if people left? If they were that afraid of the Spirit's moving then perhaps they are better off where they are?

[SirTimothy]

Fairbairn, praise god, that's not true in all parishes. In my home diocese of Birmingham, a strongly evangelical church had a woman curate, I know another in the diocese of Chichester which has a woman assistant vicar, and four or five others throughout the UK. That's not many, but there are some. :)

Tim

[higgs2]

Let’s say you are liberal, and for the female priesthood, as I am.
How can you say it has not hurt the Episcopal Church?
Most all the Anglicans groups that left in the last 30 years split over this issue.
Even if you think women priest are for the good of the church, what good does it do if people leave over it? You are faced with the reality that splitting the church in half - those who accept them, and those that don't, for the most part, didn't change anyone's mind, it just split the group. So, it didn’t really advance the female priesthood in the Anglican Communion, and it confirmed Roman Catholic and Orthodox stances. They certainly didn’t go “Oh, look how great this worked for the Anglicans! Let’s give it a go in our Church and risk blowing it up!” So, if you are for the female priesthood, you can historically see that ordaining them has ironically was hurt the cause.
Rome pleaded with us, "Don't do it. It will hurt the Church."
The Orthodox pleaded with us, "Don't do it. It will hurt the Church."
Now all of you are saying, we don’t care what they think. But, that is miss guided, we are all Christians and what we do affects all of us.
Let me put it another way. If some group comes up with new doctrine, it doesn’t change anything if the rest of Christendom doesn’t recognize them as Christian.
Pre 1970, what Anglicans did was respected by Protestants, Roman Catholic, and the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox. This gave us influence in their theological circles. Now, these groups are starting to not even recognize us as Christians. So, the net effect is setting back the female priesthood for hundreds of years.


I would never have set foot in an Episcopal church (other than for a wedding or something I guess) if they had not started ordaining women. Seriously. I grew up Methodist, Presbyterian, Congregational. When I "came back" to the church I would not have even considered a denomination that did not ordain women.

Now, how that relates to your comment on whether TEC is better off or not, I can't say :P

[Fairbairn]

Fairbairn, praise god, that's not true in all parishes. In my home diocese of Birmingham, a strongly evangelical church had a woman curate, I know another in the diocese of Chichester which has a woman assistant vicar, and four or five others throughout the UK. That's not many, but there are some. :)

Tim
Yes, you will find plenty of curates in evangelical parishes, because many of these parishes are large and are good places to train.

I think female incumbents are more of a rarity. But you find anything and everything in the C of E. :)

[karen freeinchristman]

In my course, there is a really good mixture of evangelical, broad, and catholic women ordinands (plus a few men!). All of them are highly motivated and committed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

[kiwimac]

Amen!

[SumTinWong]

I would never have set foot in an Episcopal church (other than for a wedding or something I guess) if they had not started ordaining women. Seriously. I grew up Methodist, Presbyterian, Congregational. When I "came back" to the church I would not have even considered a denomination that did not ordain women.
:P
I know at least one other person that shares this thought.

As far as whether it is a good thing, I think it is a good thing and way too long in the coming. I am glad it is here, and if the RCC and the EO do not like it or respect us less for it . . . so what. What they do does not matter to me, and I do not think it effects how i am looked at as a Christian when they do something I do not agree with, so again, so what if they disagree.