This definitely bodes ill for the orthodox Canadian Anglicans.

Robroy, could you please explain?

In the upcoming realignment, there needs to be a recognized Canadian to head and represent orthodox interests in Canada.  Might +Matthews be a candidate for this position, and who else might be considered?

APB,

A female “Bishop” to represent orthodox interests in the new province?  With ALL due respect, is that a joke?

Rolling eyes,
Would you prefer a male progressive bishop or an orthodox femaile bishop or can I just presume you’ll just swim the Tibor or join some splinter group given such options?

It is a little odd that this announcement is given in terms of “resignation” rather than “retirement.”

Hyacinth,

Well, I would prefer a male orthodox bishop so that there is no question of legitimacy.  But, that’s besides the point of my question.

The point was asking if it would be a good idea to put people in a position of leadership when those they will be leading find certain aspects of their office to be a symptom of the larger problem facing the Communion, and requiring the consideration of a new province to begin with.

BUT, if you want to continue with knee-jerking overly-emotional outbursts instead of having a conversation, then be my guest.

Bishop Joseph. Victoria is the see.

Sorry. Disregard that lack statement.  Don’t know what I was thinking.

That should be “last” statement, but it was lacking as well.  Boy! I need some strong coffee this morning.

Rolling Eyes,
Thanks for the invite to be your guest but I’m afraid I wouldn’t be very much welcomed and would spend more time dusting off my feet than its worth.  The question I asked included only the options of male progressive or female orthodox.  How could we ever engage in conversation if we couldn’t even begin to stick to the subject?  I clearly understand your desire for a male orthodox bishop. 

The tone of your question, despite its deference to respect made the option of a female orthodox bishop preposterous and had an air of disbelief toward APB’s raising that possibility - it can only be a joke - not an unlikely or unrealistic option but rather a joke.  Clearly, if there is an emotional knee-jerk reaction, it is denoted by your disbelief that APB could suggest an orthodox female bishop. 

With dust-free feet, I depart,

APB, setting aside the merits of your point—that it would be more than a little surprising for a female to be the lead an orthodox Canadian contingent into the brave new world of Anglicanism, a fair point, to be sure—listen to yourself . . .

A female “Bishop” to represent orthodox interests in the new province?  With ALL due respect, is that a joke?

. . . then . . .

BUT, if you want to continue with knee-jerking overly-emotional outbursts instead of having a conversation, then be my guest.

?!?!?!

Oops, I meant Rolling Eyes.  Apologies to APB.

When Robert Bork’s nomination to the Supreme Court failed in 1987, he shortly thereafter resigned from the US Court of Appeals.  If you are not going to hold the top job, you are not going to hang around in an intermediary position.

Rolling Eyes,

In spite of the “tone” of Hyacinth’s post, it is, however, very true that many orthodox (i.e., reasserting) congregations can not and will not accept (or acknowledge) an ‘ordained’ woman as an authority for them. 

It is a very real theological issue, whether that woman claims to be orthodox or not (they would say that by virtue of her being ordained, she has disproven her claim to orthodoxy).

Peace
Jim Elliott <><

Hyacinth, with all due respect, my question wasn’t addressed to you in the first place.  That’s why I didn’t stick to your question, but you didn’t stick to mine either, so I’ll just leave that to you to work out.

But, to address both your comments and those of Occasional Reader, perhaps I should have worded the question this way:  “Are you serious?”, instead of using the word “joke”.  Either way, I meant no disrespect and asked my question with “ALL due respect”, and even explained it to Hyacinth further.  It was neither a knee jerk reaction, nor overly-emotional.  But, I guess you all would rather split hairs then discuss.  Perhaps I, too, should just become an “occasional reader” of this blog.

libraryjim,

You have summarized my point very well.  And I agree, it IS a very real theological issue, which is why I expected more than semantics in response.

APB,
I’m not certain it will ultimately matter if +Matthews will be a leader in the new orthodox realignment (if there really is one coming).  Clearly, there are those who despite her orthodoxy will not submit to her spiritual authority.  As you can probably discern, the caustic divisions which exist between orthodox and progressives will only continue once we have realigned.  Once the realignment takes place, some of the orthodox will only worship in Jerusalem while others only in Samaria.  Some will belong to Apollo, others to Paul and others to Timothy.  As my parents would say, I will heed the Word of the Lord whether it comes from Deborah the prophetess or the “mule” of Balaam.  Hopefully my run-ins with the mules will be few having heeded to other less poignant prompting from above.

So our divisions move to Canada.
Friends (and I speak to all in the Church), we are at the highest level of alert in regard to our sensitivities, our emotions, and our theological and biblical passions.  Those passions, whether quickly released or on slow burn, are to be embraced by the fruit of the Spirit, especially gentleness and self-control; our concerns will not be understood any sooner without them.

RGEaton

It’s a little too early to bicker about this. There will be plenty of time for full blown disputes complete with tears, hurt feelings and harsh words later.

RE LibraryJim’s comment. WO is a very real theological issue, but I must add that it is a philosophical and practical issue as well.
  Question: Is a priest’s job primarily masculine or feminine? To begin to answer this requires assent to a thoroughly unAmerican proposition, that man and women are very different indeed, that these differences start in genetic structure and continue to develop as genetic expression is modified by experience. I say that this is so, incontrovertibly so, although I will agree that mankind is so malleable that we can teach women to be men and vice versa, and each will perform in the adopted role. But I still declare that   there is a male and a female nature this is essential and definitive. Can I prove this? Not in any “scientific” sense although psychology has shown for many decades how many and how real the differences are. AT least, the evidence is that evolution has encouraged a design in which the sexes carry radical differences based on the necessities of performance.

  The question again: Is the pastor a father or a mother? We can readily undersrand why God is a Father and Christ is a man, because in both cases they are the creators and transmitters of The Law. Even the emphasis on Love is an emphasis on the Love as part of the Law, and the Love spoken of has nothing to do with the fussy and sentimental use one sees romantic novels. The Love that sends a Son to His death is a Love like t he Law, impartial, transcendent, abstract,just, unsentimental, absolute, and final. The Son who obeys is not weak or submissive (like Mary) but confident and bold. This is, ladies and gentlemen, the Man’s Role. Through a million permutations, this is his nature.
  Can a woman speak in any meaningful sense of God the Mother, or Mother Jesus, or are these oxymorons? Agriculture provides us with a clear metophor. Plowing is man’s task, planting is a common task, and tending the plant to fruition is a woman’s task. Evolution has clearly made men and women as partners, not clones. And the Bible bears this out at every turn.
  Is this oversimplified? Why, of course. And yet , in all our memories, these images remain strong, and often clear, in spite of the radical impositions of femininism. The Father transmits the Love of Law, and the Mother transmits the Law of Love. Do I mean these to be mutually exclusive? Of couse not.

    A pastor has many roles, but what is paramount?
My answer is the transmission of The Law. This is not The Law of the Jews, but the Law of Christ, which is all of the former plus that other element which we call sacrifice, forgiveness and caritas, feminine qualities all. And I submit that these qualities are subsumed beneath The Law, not the other way around, and this is one justification for denying WO. 

  I am aware of how unfashionable, how incorrect, how offensive this is to the liberal world, particularly because such an agenda sees my distinctions as asserting women’s inferiority. But I have done nothing of the sort. I said “partners,” and meant it in its deepest sense; one cannot succeed without the other. LM

Larry, I think that yo have presented the catholic argument well.  I’d like to make a few additional points, drawing on anthropological observations.

All socities divide statuses into male and female roles.  While roles and statuses are different they are reciprocal and not static.  For example, among the Hopi basket weaving is a female task whereas among the Navaho, it is a male task. Status of the work depends on the whether the work id done by males or females.  In other words, it is observed almost universally that the higher status is ascribed to males.  That does not mean that all males achieve higher status.  There is a difference between what is ascribed and what is achieved.  Likewise, almost universally lower status is ascribed to females but that does not mean that every female is without achieved status.

Now when we consider primative societies (where we find the origins and sources of today’s primary religious belief systems) we note almost universally that hunting is a male task whereas agriculture is a female task.  When archiac peoples took life in the hunt, the spiritual leader (priest/shaman) offered prayers for the sacrifice of the animal killed to make life possible for the people.  These prayers and the sacrifice were performed (as you noted) according to sacred law.  So that the priest symbolizes prayer, sacrifice and law.

Females in primative societies nurture growth, tend gardens and fields and harvest.  The harvesting process usually included males as well (remember the story of Ruth in Boaz’ field?)  So it is apparent that there is some reciprocal dynamic in statuses/roles.  This is why there can be no total separation or dicotomy of roles since rules govern both so that some plants must be killed and some animals must be protected and nurtured.

For Christians this information is especially significant as it relates to the blessed Theotokos, to whom God chose to ascribe the status of Queen among the saints, an unachieved glory.  It is to wonderful story of the Magnificat: He has exalted the low and brought low the mighty.

And interesting essay, Alice. As to the second paragraph, we note that in agrarian societies, men and women worked side by side, even when they worked a different jobs, because the survivial of both family and society required such cooperation. And so we note that after 1620 here in New England, men and women occupied equally important roles, though the roles were different. One could not get on without the other. It was only in the 19th century that women’s partnership became marginalized. One only has to pay attention to Abigail Adams in the 18th to observe that women were hardly submissive, obedient, and faceless.
  But you know, the Anglicans would do well to find a proper role for women inside the church’s religious function. I would suggest this: That in those churches where confession is still practiced, the penitent be given the opportunity to choose whether his/her confessor be a man or a woman. Women often need a woman to confess to for their genuine problems are unlike men’s. This would be an important spiritual role. And I can imagine a penitent confessing to both a man and a woman at once, for they will hear his problems with differ ent ears. What would one call such a woman’s role? Could it be created without ordination? Is there an equjivalent to ordination that is not such?

  That I am against wo is not because I am anti-women. Rather I want their powers prope rly used and sanctified.  Wha do you think?  Larry

I never doubted your support for women in ministry, Larry. There are indeed many ministries that are especially appropriate for women.
Confession to a lay person is already permitted by the BCP, but the practice of oricular confession never took root in ECUSA (unlike in Orthodoxy and the Roman Church).

You might be interested in two essays at Just Genesis (see link below) on the topic of the Priesthood.  The first is on “Shamanic Practice and the Priesthood” and the second touches on what I wrote about before but goes further into “The Primeval Origins of the Priesthood.”
Best wishes.  Alice

It might be helpful to list some of the ‘womens roles’ in the Anglican Church as it currently exists, exclusive of ordained ministries.
I can think, off the top of my head, of:

Altar guild
Sewing guilds (for vestments, needle-point kneelers, banners, etc)
flower guild
hospitality services
lay readers

and of course, although there are not as many in the Anglican Church as there is in the Roman Catholic Church,
Sisters in orders (i.e., nuns).

Is the order of deaconess controversial? I haven’t heard much about that, primarily, I think, because the office of deacon is mostly transitory, serving as one step on the journey to ordained priesthood.

Peace
Jim Elliott <><

Oh, many of the intercessory prayer ministries are also headed and serves as women’s ministries.  Men joining these are often seen as the exception, for some reason.

But the jobs you cite, LibraryJim, are all householdy sorts of things. Not,. mind you, that I think them unimportant. I had something in mind that was closer to the heart of the church’s operation. Hence my suggestion about confession. I dislike the notion of auricular confession, but I can see that it can be important and helpful. Should it be established with us?

  What’s a deaconess do?  Larry

Oh, and I thought a woman could not be a lay reader. Can she be? Larry

hmmm, I’ve not come across anything that says she CAN’T, but then I’ve not searched very hard on this one.

And you don’t think Altar Guild is not close to the heart of the church’s operation of worship? interesting.

P.S.
What would your list look like?

While you continue to discuss this topic, I encourage you to read this essay: “The Primeval Origins of the Priesthood” published at Just Genesis, linked below.

Alice,
I liked this line:

Here we find again the idea that one line is chosen, but the other line is still blessed.

You put that very nicely, I thought.  Just because women are not/have not been ‘chosen’ to be priests in either Judaism or Chrisitianity does not mean that they are not ‘blessed’ in their own ministries.

By the way, since you would be in a position to know better than most here, in Re: Larry’s question:

CAN women be lay readers? Most church congregations I’ve attended have them, so I figured it was acceptable. What is the current understanding? Historical?

Thanks
Jim Elliott

Women are not excluded from being lay readers or lay eucharistic ministers in the Anglican tradition, but their exercise of these duties depends on the priest’s inclination to see that they are trained and equipped to do so.  Dorothy Sayers, for example, was a lay reader in the Church of England and a warden of her parish.

In the Orthodox Church a lay woman may even preach, although that is at the discretion of the priest, and it doesn’t happen very often, because few feel qualified to preach. Again a matter of training and equipping women, which depends so much on the inclination of the parish priest.

#29 Libraryjim: The altar guild is important in its own way, but it is not important in the sense that I meant it, that is, open to the source of church authority.
  What you and Alice said about lay readers is interesting. I shall put this matter to my deacon and see what he says.
  What’s your email address?  Larry

Larry, you can send me a message through the users list by linking into your account.  I look forward to hearing from you!

Jim Elliott