Muslims also sincerely and utterly believe that blowing themselves up in buses is God's will. That doesn't make it true, though. Yes, "dogmatic narrowness and intransigence" like the long dispute about homoousios, settled by the bishops (not "bishopesses") at Nicea and Constantinople, a dire dispute that was a source of much division and ecclesiastical convulsion for decades. Why weren't they more accomodating of Arians? I'm sure Arians would have passed off as credible Christians if the Church back then were made up of social marxists and spineless liberals as she is today. The world hates the truth, it is the Church's job to defend and proclaim it, not to catter to heretics of old or the gender ideologues of today. Women's "ordination" is a theological fiction of heretics. Another fad fueled by satanic pride. Nothing more.
[/quote] really sincerely and utterly believe women bishops to be God's Will. [quote/] The question of women in orders has splintered the Church for whatever reason. We have as Anglican / Catholics a basic belief known as Holy Tradition, the work of the Holy Ghost within the Church. For some two thousand years there have been no women in Holy Orders as far as I can see, in view of this and the harm it has done over the last 40 years, the very least that should be done is for the matter to be put to a General Council of the Church!
A quick revote in favour will make the Anglican church look weak and bowing to public pressure in an attempt to be popular. If anything will make them despised by the nation it's that. What the Anglican church must do is become a church of conviction and strength. It's not enough to vote against female bishops if it compromises on other biblical beliefs.
On the contrary, I am taking the entirety of the Bible, from Genesis, to the Old Prophets, the New Testament, and the Revelation, where the primacy and centrality of the male leadership of the Church is stamped through and through. You are trying to reject that with a single line that "we are all one in Christ", which is an example of the exegetical fallacy called "illegitimate totality transfer", namely, attempting to derive or extract an entire theology from an incorrect reading of one word Words have meaning, and that meaning is objective, once and for all. What God instituted before the foundation of the world will be true for ever and ever. His institution of male hegemony, his focus on Adam, his teaching that Eve came from Adam (rather than him biologically coming from her), his placing all of redemptive history between two masculine figures, him placing the two male Adams at the headship of the Church, the masculine hegemony in the OT, the masculine hegemony among Christ's chosen presbyters and bishops -- these are simple and plain facts, which your job is to irrationally avoid, escape, and obfuscate. The point is that God directed that Adam was in hegemony and spiritual fatherhood of the whole human race. We are guilty, have original sin, because he sinned. He is the leader of the whole human race, including women. Because he sinned, all sin, including women. It doesn't really matter what Eve did, or whether she sinned or not. God is pretty sure. God made all of us under the rule of either the first Adam (damned) or the second Adam (saved). Again, it didn't really matter what Eve thought. Of course it matters. God could have made Christ be a hermaphrodite, which would be a perfect symbol that he was 'for' both men and women, that all men and women were 'equal' in him. The first Adam too (especially being a mythological construct according to you) could've been a hermaphrodite, the inchoate Ouranos of Greek theology, out of which humanity of all races and sexes comes out of. But he was a man. And Jesus was a man. God placed the spiritual leadership of the human race to the masculine gender. Christ was in the first-century Judah. Nice little left-wing liberalism there. And he was a Messiah, the Savior, Christus the Annoited. Paul says he did. And Paul moves the entirety of history around those two points (the first and second Adams). This is the infallible word of God in the New Testament. Let's see what sort of higher criticism you're going to whip out in an attempt to deny Christianity this time. I note how you avoided the topic of the Old Testament and complete male hegemony there, as ordained by God in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. I'll just accept that you grant my point, and let's move on to the New Testament. Christ appointed the Twelve, and they were the "episkopoi", koine Greek plural for "episkopos". Then after his death he appeared to Paul, and appointed him also. Paul repeatedly writes, when he refers to all of the "episkopoi" who had been consecrated by Christ, as "The Twelve and myself". There is an equation between him and them that does not exist between them and any other person in the New Testament. Women are enjoined to be quiet and cover their head only in the Church, during the Church service. Not that they cannot speak in their overall life, as that would be terrible bondage to women. The goal here is not bondage of women, but the respect for the Word of God. The problem here is the concept of "priestly activity", which for you refers to any feel-good action that somehow relates to Christ or to God. This is a false definition. There is no "priestly activity". There is the "priestly office". One either has it, or not. A person can do no priestly activity their whole lives, and still remain a priest. And on the other hand, you can perform "priestly activities" till you go blind in one eye and that still won't make you a priest. Secular governors have nothing to do with the Church. After the laws of Henry VIII and Edward VI were swept away by the Bloody Mary, when Elizabeth came to the throne the Bishops worked with her to abrogate Henry VIII's title of the Supreme Head, and arranged for her title to be the Supreme Governor. Christ is the Head of the Church, and the monarch is simply the secular governor. In that she is just like other secular rulers who governed the Church through history, such as Constantine, or Solomon. They were not presbyters or bishops. They were simple laymen, despite being the Governors of the Church.
Never give up hope in the Lord, strong and mighty. He is faithful where we are not. "Not great faith in God, but faith in a great God".
As the late Dr. Toon said in his booklet "Episcopal Innovations, 1960-2004", "Although Jesus Christ himself chose only men to be his apostles, though his apostles set apart only men to be the overseers and elders in the first churches, and though the Church through history only had men as bishops, presbyters and deacons, women have been ordained as deacons, presbyters and bishops since the 1970s in the Episcopal Church and in other Provinces of the Anglican Communion. There is little doubt but that the driving force for this massive change were the liberation forces within Western society generated by the human rights and feminist movements, who called for equality of opportunity for women in all areas of society and life." There you have it! This has nothing to do with Christianity. Anyone who thinks so is under an unfortunate impression. There is a great work of corruption and evil at hand. The created and moral order must be totally subverted in order that The Antichrist may reign, after all. All religious, theological, doctrinal, or dogmatic reasons for these novelties are merely invented post-factum.
Several African provinces ordain women as deacons and priests. Did Toon think that exported Western feminism played a part in that development, or did something else prompt it?
Africa has been colonised and shaped by the West, both for the good and the bad. It's obvious that feminism and liberalism has already made huge inroads into many African countries.
That probably had something to do with it. Africa since the end of Colonialism did not simply revert to a "pure" state of its own culture. Western dominance in economy and culture in the last 50 years must certainly have affected this shift. Remember that the foundations of a lot of African Anglican churches were white missionaries. A zeitgeist can last a long while. Either way, come what may, the Lord's will shall be fully done some day.
But I note that Africa is where the opposition to female bishops (and priests) is the strongest. Primates like Akinola and Okoh are veritable fire-breathing dragons when talking about the corruptions of Christianity in Western counties. Gafcon was started largely under the leadership of the African archbishops. There is indeed a liberalism that's seeping into a few African provinces, and it comes through the vehicle of money, the financing coming out of the Episcopal Church. The Episcopal Church is fantastically wealthy, and they export millions of dollars every year, for 'charitable causes'. Those 'causes' have strings attached, the biggest of them being the advancement of liberal theology in the provinces which accept the money.
I am impressed that you all have such little respect for the leadership of your bishops who bring us the teaching of the apostles. Over 90% of the bishops voting supported the resolution to allow respect for those who disagreed with their understanding regarding women's ordination. Perhaps we should simply become the congregational church that so many want. Then the laity can be in charge of the interpretation of dogma, in place of their bishops. We can have theology by vote. Now, women can be deacons and priests, but not bishops, a new theology. For decades, the Church prayed over whether women could be ordained. In the US, we understand this approach to theology well. Individuals who speak the loudest with regard to their interpretation of Scripture are heard. GAFCON has planted churches and ACNA in the US. Folks are welcome to leave the Communion and follow them. The situation is the same in many places in the Communion, and especially on this board where the gender issues are THE GOSPEL and what defines the Church. I do not embrace the view of women and gender held by the African primates. You all are free to embrace their cultural traditions and views; that's where their theological positions come from. ALL of us can use Scripture as the support our personal social and theological views. The so-called conservatives have developed this approach into an art form. 150 years ago, they supported slavery and opposed evolution and science. 100 years ago, they opposed the idea of women working or voting. 50 years ago, they used Scripture to keep native peoples and minorities in their place. Now, they still use Scripture to support their personal views. After all, the world is ending soon; the pre-millnialists have their calendars. I find it a travesty that a loud minority within the Church is about to be successful in breaking up the Church of England and the Anglican Communion. And all this over the definition of the sacrament of marriage and the sacrament of holy orders. Saddest is that many of the leaders of this opposition prefer the congregational approach and only believe in 2 sacraments. They are breaking up the church over social issues, over gender issues, not over the gospel, not over the Creeds, not over baptism and the Eucharist, not over free will, not over the Resurrection. This is just another sad chapter in the breakup of the English orthodox Church, the English Communion of Christians throughout the world. Perhaps, I have a different perspective. I live in a country where the #1 religious group is Roman Catholic, the #2 religious group is lapsed Catholics. And while the evangelical conservatives left for ACNA and other Churches, Catholics have come into TEC. Our local parish of about 2000 is comprised of over 50% lapsed Catholics. While the Greek, Antiochian and Russian churches had appeal, the English Church had more appeal. Few are interested in a Communion split into dozens of church groups. I apologize for the long post. I suspect that at this time next year I will not be in an Anglican church. Our bishop has taken the diocese and the parishes out of the Communion, with no vote or discussion with those in the parishes. The bishop continues to live in property owned by TEC, and dares the national church to attack him, as he has for years. There are a dozen loyal church left, but deciding between my bishop and the Anglican Communion is a choice without a reasonable answer. Only prayer will work. If I am to leave the Universal Church, then there are fine churches available that are part of our tradition: Methodists and Presbyterians. Or I can go to Orthodox or Roman Church, warts and all.
We do not believe that bishops - be they two in number or two thousand - are infallible angels of God. When a bishop denies not only the faith in Christ, God-man incarnate, but the very Order of Creation, he must be rebuked. When a bishop affirms what is true, good, and beautiful, he is to be commended. You can't blame the conservatives for the prolific number of bad bishops. "Respect" is meaningless and we know it. The Roman Church commands and promises 'respect' for the Traditionalists who want a Latin Mass, but almost all the bishops subvert and ignore that law. Bureaucracy always wins over virtue in a fallen world, where none are virtuous. Let all these bishops convert and be turned to Christ again, not to their vanities and ambitions in the House of Lords. Sarcasm won't help the feeling of bitterness. Liberals seem to believe that it's the Will of God whenever their agendas are on the ascendancy, but when Conservatives block them anywhere it is a confusing, bewildering victory for 'bigots'. Can none admit that they were wrong? Many of us have had to do so in many ways, but can they not? The vote failed - so why not trust in providence, rather than be sorrowful that this overtly political, non-religious idea was halted? The look of sadness on the faces of those women convinced me that they don't believe in God - because they have no trust, no faith, except in their feminism. The liberals and progressives are the ones with the biggest voice in England. A bishop has every pulpit in the entire diocese to preach from. Traditional Laity can hardly get a word in edgewise. It's a miracle that this was stopped. If the Church of England ever does win out in destroying the Gospel, many will indeed work to make the GAFCON affiliates into the new Anglican Communion. The force of the Holy Spirit is behind the true Word of the Lord. Wherever He goes, we try our hardest to follow and be led. If the Anglican Communion is doomed by its love of popularity and Satanic ambition for the embrace of kings and parliaments, then another will take her place. It was done with Rome, and it can be done here. God damns and hates evil and human pride. Funny, the very gospel-centered Wilberforce hated slavery. Generalizations are not very helpful if they're plainly wrong. We're not all pre-millenialists and Jehova's Witnesses. Please stop with the snark. There's no need to be rash just because the agenda of progressivism lost for a few years. Your love of equal opportunity employment and mainstream opinion will be enshrined, somehow. The most bloody-minded anti-Christian bishops will always be trying to destroy the plain sense of scripture. It's inevitable; the road to hell is paved by the crowns of episcopal skulls. I find it a travesty that our views, goals, and intentions are so misunderstood and misrepresented. Even if we were the villainous schismatics & bigots most other people make us out to be, "all this" is still very important. The role of the sexes in the Created Order is of the very bedrock of our humanity. To act as if these are mere side-issues being exaggerated by a few cantankerous conservatives is not right. Also, parties opposed to the corruption of human sexuality are not just congregationalists and two-sacrament people (not that there's anything wrong with that, since Anglicanism has always confessed two necessary sacraments). There is a fundamental difference between us as Christians, mark 1: you are sorrowful at our opposition to change - we are amused that you are sorrowful. Our wish is to preserve the ancient faith and the created order itself. The Gospel of God is nothing if we deny the Sovereignty of God in shaping and dedicating the reality of Creation as He sees fit. That is our logic. If the liberals were not denying the English orthodox faith, there would be no breakup. People are far too passive-aggressive about this. Whinging and complaining about male patriarchy did all this, not our opposition to the whinging and complaining. The world is destroying us, not we ourselves - though we are inexplicably allowing it to do so. I think TEC is 50%+ lapsed Catholics because those are the worse Catholics of all. They left because they wanted women priests, abortion, etc., and their Church wouldn't disobey the Gospel in those things. Pride always wins with the sinner. Thanks be to God for Christ and His teaching. The Roman Church is good at changing its doctrine; just compare Trent to Vatican II. Liberals should flock to it, because it's right up their alley.
Umm no, many of those bishops have, like Peter, denied the Gospel. And some of them have even been like Judas, and sought to destroy the Gospel. As for this gospel we speak of, it wasn't brought to us by these bishops. It's been enshrined in infallible and unchanging Scripture. What an Anglo-Catholic doctrine you have mark1 where the bishops are the authors and even prophets of the word of God in the today's world? How low can Anglo-Catholicism go? I'm surprised that Anglo-Catholics opposed women bishops at all, but some of them did, and helped the bill be overturned. The word of God is unchanging. And the bishops' role is not to be as prophets of 'new teaching', but protectors and defenders of the word of God.
Sadly! Hopefully it can become that way! We are set in our goals. Vigilance! Adamant love of the Gospel! Faith! Good will!
I'm just saying: don't assume that I share all views of everyone else on this forum. I'm sure that mark1 was just speaking in generalities. I actually never said what I think about women's ordination.
Wherever the Gospel is in danger of being denied, we must fight. That's all that matters in this life. Exactly who is 'everyone else'? Most people are for women clergy or are at least resigned to their inevitability.