I don't know all the political differences here in Australia, although I have heard that some dioceses, like Sydney, are definitely anti WO and others, like Melbourne are more accepting. My own diocese is pro WO, which suits me just fine. I am not sure if we have split off groups like the ACNA from the Episcopalian. Someone else from Australia might know about this. I am fairly new to Anglicanism, and I am just grateful that my diocese is pro because I love my parish priest (a female) and have thoughts of pursuing ordination myself (still discerning). As an RCC I knew that there were many divisions in the church, although even those who support WO can't really do anything about it since the Pope has made it clear that it isn't going to happen. And anyone who speaks out for WO is usually silenced. A priest friend of mine was fired and excommunicated. Later he tried to apologise and recant but he wasn't accepted back as a working priest. It is a very divisive and controversial issue for a lot of people. I just like that we are even able to discuss it civilly, no matter our own opinions.
It’s not speculation; it’s a hypothesis based on induction. I believe @Shane R and @bwallac2335 adequately addressed the issue of WO in the ACNA above. Women in general statistically tend to be more progressive than men. They also tend to be more religious. So, if most jurisdictions in the ACNA allow WO and those sections of ACNA are also growing, I can only conclude that the majority of women there support it, and so do the people they’re bringing in. I don’t see a pro-WO stance as a bad influence, and I think that kind of language will understandably repel more people than it attracts. If the anti-WO minority doesn’t accept it, the result will almost certainly be yet another schism. It’s hard to see how that benefits anyone in the long run. In every jurisdiction I know of that ultimately adopted WO, it had the support of the majority of the women there. The odds of WO being adopted in Eastern Orthodoxy are quite low, and it just so happens that most EO women (according to polling data) don’t support it. I suspect that conjunction is not an accident. At present, all of Christianity is a sinking ship, and there’s no reason to believe the ACNA is any better equipped to deal with modern secular society than anyone else, or that the ACNA will be less vulnerable to those influences than others have been. If you don’t believe me, just look at what’s happened to the far larger and more powerful Roman Catholic Church in this country.
"Hypothesis" (noun): a tentative, potential explanation that may be tested by further investigation; an assumption.
Yes indeed. I would love to see some empirical studies that test what I’ve stated (and I have looked for such). Perhaps that is a service I can render some day (my training, in what seems like aeons ago now, was originally in the social sciences). But I don’t foresee having the free time to undertake that for a long time.
Much of the 'political' differences in Australia can be mapped to the settlement and development of regions in realtion to the happenings in England and Ireland, and most particularly the Irish Potato Famine and the rise of the Oxford Movement. We have in the main manged to hold the Church together in Australia, thouigh this has taken a good deal of grace on the part of the General Synod of the Church. Because of Urbanisation, the Diocese of Sydney embraces somewhere around 33% of the population of Australia, and historically through trusts and the like sits on about half the cash. Sydney has a somewhat predatory approach to other Diocese, and has used cash, and staffing to influence and change the character of other Dioceses. In my Diocese there are several branch churches satelite congrergations from Sydney. Sydney, Armidale and Tasmania are somewhat aligned with the Global Anglican Future Conference, and most other disocese are somewhat not aligned. At somestage we probably will have a parting of the ways, and it probably will not be pretty, yet there is still the hope that grace and the Holy Spirit will holds us together in the bonds of faith, hope and love. I would remind people of the forum rules 4. Modern errors There shall be no statements to promote modern errors, such as gay "marriage" and women's ordination. And yes, these are items that are undoubtedly part of the stress that exists in the Australian Church, not that they are the cause of the stress which existed long before, but perhaps are the grit causing the most friction and heat at the moment.
It's somewhat fascinating to compare the Lutherans. In the US, a new church splintered off of the largest Synod within a year of the ACNA doing the same with TEC. This new church was called North American Lutheran Church. The women's ordination issue was not as important for them and they established that it would be accepted early in their history and went on about their business. They also established a general liturgical identity quickly that tends to be low church but not charismatic influenced. They have a bishop, just one at any given time. In their ecclesiology he is not terribly important and doesn't have much to do in that capacity. That's how a church with 100,000+ people manages to function with one. It's an interesting study in how an organization can take shape and achieve stability relatively quickly. Similar origins but a rather different trajectory from ACNA. Perhaps it is somewhat simpler to be a Lutheran.
I respectfully suggest this is a rule that should be either repealed outright, or replaced with a new one that simply bars discussion of it altogether. In its current form, it is a moral hazard. It incentivizes members holding what is in effect a minority view in Anglicanism, to make outrageous and offensive statements about other individual Anglicans on the forum, or the jurisdictions to which they belong, without providing the latter the space to defend their position within the parameters set by the forum. So, one side can hurl all the insults they want, and the other side - which represents the majority of Anglicans worldwide - is expected to simply keep quiet. It ought to be against the rules of an Anglican forum for specific Anglican jurisdictions to be referred to as "heretical", or for their sacraments to be called "invalid", because of the WO issue. Such statements are either indicative of a profound loss of balance in perspective, or the hidden assumption of Roman Catholic (i.e., non-Anglican) doctrines of Holy Orders and the sacraments, or both. If the purpose of the site is to be a fundamentalist forum rather than an Anglican forum, a name change would probably be less misleading. Otherwise, those of us who belong to canonical Anglican jurisdictions see many of these issues not as "modern errors", but as organic parts of our ongoing development that are now long-settled, established practice.
It is fascinating that LCMS is not in communion with them, but they are “on the road to” communion with us (ACNA)… is it because precisely of those tensions among us, which give them promise that we’ll fully return to what they perceive as the biblical doctrine of gender, whereas the NALC is so comfortable with the “new age” of doing things that LCMS sees them as beyond the pale?
I believe that discussion is for another thread. My reason for highlighting the rule, was not to take a position as such, but rather to ensure that no-one slipped over a line that would create angst.
Lutherans have a harder time reaching agreements with each other than they do with other confessions. LCMS and WELS have been in various stages of feuding and reconciliation for 60 years and aren't back in altar and pulpit fellowship with each other. This is because when Lutherans talk to each other they almost immediately bog themselves down in points of minutiae from the Book of Concord.
I figured it was worth a preemptive defense. I have very little interest in starting such a thread, so I’m not sure it matters all that much where the comment occurs, as it’s relevant to the discussion at hand anyway (among others).
Our Bishop visited our church today to conduct an ordination, a confirmation, several receptions, a marriage reaffirmation, recognition of a deacon turning to emeritus status, and more. I was the designated photographer, and I took almost 300 photos. (It was a long and wonderful service!) I am of a mind to share something Bishop Dobbs said during his homily. Bishop Dobbs pointed out that there is one, and only one, body of Christ on earth and it is comprised of all believers. All members of that one body of Christ are called to be in unity with the head, Jesus Christ, and with one another (the various members). When two members are in strife or disunity with one another, it is because one or both of them is not in unity with Christ; the closer one is to Him (that is, the better one allows himself to be led by the Spirit), the more he is in unity with our Lord. If all our steps are led by and established by our Lord, then we will be in unity and harmony with one another. Thus, I perceive, disunity (strife) among Christians is a sure sign that our prayer lives are not in order and that our self-will is dominant (we are not sufficiently submitted to Him). Can any of us honestly say that we are perfectly submitted to our Lord and Master? I know that I cannot. Out of love for Christ and for His church, however, I resolve to continue trying.
I am afraid that I find this rule very strange since the Anglican church does allow WO (perhaps not in all dioceses but certainly in a good number), especially in Australia, where I live. If I am not allowed to discuss WO in a positive way, then perhaps this is not the forum for me. I did believe that Anglicans allowed dissent, unlike the RCC, and that is one of the things that attracted me to Anglicanism in the first place. But if this forum insists on no one supporting WO, then I will quite respectfully say goodbye and leave you to it. When only a certain point of view is allowed in a discussion, then it isn't really a discussion at all, and the forum then has the attributes more of a cult. Thank you for the time I have spent here, and some of the wonderful posters but I am going to seek a place where all points of view are allowed.
That eliminates Facebook and Twitter... You have to admit, don't you, that WO is modern? And that practically every Christian (from the theologian down to the common layperson) prior to the 19th Century would have said that WO, if it were done (which is wasn't), would be an error? But seriously, I think you've overreacted a bit and I hope you won't go. You've probably observed by now that some leeway has been allowed to discuss the issue.
What does being modern have to do with anything? If you mean that WO is a recent thing, yes, for Anglicans it is. There are female ministers in many other Christian faiths however. I think what really concerns me is the exclusive attitude to even being able to comment or discuss WO. Just because something happened in the past doesn't mean it is necessarily correct for the present and the future. I think of things like slavery and racism, as well as women being treated like chattel. Just because that happened in the past doesn't mean it is acceptable today. So no I don't think it is an error. I know that people like to gird themselves with rules and regulations - I come from the RCC after all. But the Holy Spirit acts in ways that aren't always bound by rules. But I won't debate the whole WO issue here since there are forum rules against it, and now I know. Have I overreacted? I don't know. The person who made the comment has since sent me a private message to say it was a preemptive comment in case I crossed the line in the WO discussion. I thought that person was a forum owner or moderator so decided I wasn't welcome here. Since that person was just a concerned citizen, the comment does seem a little premature now. But seriously, I don't really feel welcome here, being a woman. I do respect that you all have a right to your opinions however, and this is someone's forum, not mine, so thank you again but unless I need to respond to something someone posts to me, then I know there are other, more welcoming places. As for Twitter and FB not being welcoming... I am already a member of a group on FB for Anglican female clergy and they are quite welcoming. I don't use Twitter that much so can't say.