Why Men Should Head the (Anglican) Church


#1

Why men should head the Church
Sacha Bonsor
timesonline.co.uk/article/0,7-1691343,00.html

Former deacon Caroline Sandon puts the case against female bishops

AFTER the Synod’s vote on Monday to remove the legal blocks to women becoming bishops, a quiet celebration is taking place among the Church’s female ranks. But, as a former deacon of St Andrew’s Church in Cambridge, I feel that the ordination of female bishops will destroy values that the institution to which I belong has spent 2,000 years establishing. The point about the Church is that it is like the family: it has a hierarchy — and women should not be at the head.

I have enjoyed a quiet faith all of my life. One of my first memories is of my grandfather sitting beside my bed and reading a bedtime story from the Bible — not a task he took lightly. He would smooth out the pages so that they were flat and speak slowly and clearly, evidently lost in the words and stories that were so alive to him. I recall wanting whatever it was that he had.

Unlike many of my peers, I took my confirmation, at the age of 13, very seriously. I was conscious that being a Christian was about more than going to church and I promised myself then that I would seek to live in accordance with what the Bible taught. But it never entered my head to become ordained. When I left school, I decided to become a teacher. Like my friends, I believed in and applauded female leadership in the workplace. I moved to Cambridge, where I taught as a secondary school teacher, and I planned to climb up the educational ladder.

There was no defining moment at which I felt called to the Church, but when the Bible Club that I ran during lunch break was closed down by my teachers’ union, I realised that I far preferred teaching the Bible to algebra. After four years of contemplation and talking to friends, I applied for theological training at Wycliffe Hall in Oxford, aged 27. I was somewhat surprised to be accepted.

When I started the three-year course in 1990, the only opportunity open to women was to be ordained as a deacon. Two years later, in November 1992, that all changed: the General Synod accepted the measure to ordain women as priests. I remember the day very clearly. A good friend said to me: “Carrie, I’ll be a bishop within 20 years.” She, like the majority of women in my year, saw the ordination of women priests as a stepping stone to something far greater.

For me, the decision was very simple — I was as much opposed to the ordination of women priests then as I am opposed to the possibility of women bishops now.

Old-fashioned as it may sound, it is my theological conviction that the ordination of women to the priesthood is wrong. There are various biblical passages that dictate my belief, the most significant of which is St Paul’s teachings in I Timothy where he does not allow women to teach or to have authority over men within the context of the Church.

My critics argue that St Paul’s words, along with much of the Bible, should be reinterpreted according to our culture — women in his day were not as educated as they are today, for example — but I am as unconvinced by their argument as they are by mine. St Paul’s teachings are not based on the prevailing culture of his time but on the pattern of human relationships established at the Creation. Adam was formed first and then Eve.

Just as the pattern of the Creation produced mother, father and child, so it should be echoed in the family of the Church. The father figure stands for leadership, the mother figure for nurture.

In the Church, there is a variety of different roles that a woman can take on within the nurturing realm — as deacons, pastoral workers, youth or child workers — but by ordaining them to the role of the man, we are denying God’s children of the clear roles that the two sexes play in the developing process.

Many see my views as a promotion of inequality, which I vehemently deny. Society seems determined to define equality by eradicating differences; the challenge for the Church is to model equality and diversity at the same time. It is perfectly possible to be equal but to have different functions. You do not say of a man, for example, that because he didn’t bear the child he is not equal to his wife. I have worked alongside men for 11 years and I do not see myself as “below” them or inferior to them — we both serve God in our different ways. Nor do I apply my belief to the private sector — I am in full support of female leaders outside the Church and the family.

It is inevitable that, at some stage in the future, we will have a female Archbishop of Canterbury. It grieves me that women see serving the Church as a career with a glass ceiling. I see it differently…

See entire article:
timesonline.co.uk/article/0,7-1691343,00.html


#2

[quote=barnestormer]Why men should head the Church
Sacha Bonsor
timesonline.co.uk/article/0,7-1691343,00.html

Former deacon Caroline Sandon puts the case against female bishops


[/quote]

The Anglican Church needs to reunite with the Catholic or be eliminated. It is a Protestant Chrch, has gone the direction of Protestant disintiegration, and will continue unless its course is changed. The episcopal Church is just a few decades ahead of it. See where they have gone.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com


#3

That brings up a good question: should women be doctors? Lawyers? Judges? Work supervisors? School teachers/professors/academic administrators? Police officers? CEO’s of companies or corporations?

These too are positions of authority, and if they are mothers, they are abdicating their role of traditional mother/wife in favor of a role which often places them in authority over men.


#4

When my dad was dying at Columbia Presbyterian in NYC there was an Episcopal seminarian chaplain. She was very gracious to me a 15 year-old boy and I mentioned her to an Episcopalian friend and his dad said" The good Lord served the Last Supper not the waitress!" All I can say is there are still US Episcopaliams who are old school.


#5

I totally agree that women should be lawyers, doctors, any position that they are qualified to be.

That in the Catholic Church has nothing to do with women being priests or bishops etc. As women are different from men and have their roles to play, just like men are different from women and have their roles to play.

I am not sure how an Anglican would respond to this, but as a Catholic, I can expand on this more if you want.

God Bless
Scylla


#6

[quote=scylla]I totally agree that women should be lawyers, doctors, any position that they are qualified to be.

That in the Catholic Church has nothing to do with women being priests or bishops etc. As women are different from men and have their roles to play, just like men are different from women and have their roles to play.

I am not sure how an Anglican would respond to this, but as a Catholic, I can expand on this more if you want.

God Bless
Scylla
[/quote]

This Anglican responds by saying you, and *Ordiantio sacerdotalis *, are absolutely correct.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus


#7

Amen!

By the way does GKC stand for GK Chesterton? Oops sorry that is your username, is that then just your initials?

God Bless
Scylla


#8

I am glad you mentioned this because everytime this discussion comes up, the word authority comes up. I have listened to the women who are advocating female priesthood, and I have never heard any of them say that its about wanting to confect the eucharist or service to parishoners, or administering any sacrament. Its about power and authority. I do not have a problem with women in authority positions as my boss is a female. I could not work for a nicer person. They just dont get it comes down to the roles of male and female in the church.


#9

Who cares about who heads the Anglican Church? They can choose a yellow dog to be the head of their church for all I care.


#10

[quote=Anima Christi]who heads the Anglican Church?
[/quote]

isn’t it Elizabeth II now? a female.


#11

Dear Barnestormer,
Please follow your thinking to its logical conclusion: join the Church that Jesus founded, the only one that is being faithful to His teachings - the Catholic Church.


#12

[quote=scylla]Amen!

By the way does GKC stand for GK Chesterton? Oops sorry that is your username, is that then just your initials?

God Bless
Scylla
[/quote]

It stands for Chesterton, yes. I’ve collected his works (and those of Belloc and Lewis and Tolkien and many others) for about 40 years.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus


#13

[quote=Anima Christi]Who cares about who heads the Anglican Church? They can choose a yellow dog to be the head of their church for all I care.
[/quote]

Suit yourself. As far my Anglican Parish, we pray for Benedict XVI at each Mass.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus


#14

[quote=GKC]Suit yourself. As far my Anglican Parish, we pray for Benedict XVI at each Mass.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus
[/quote]

How about instead of merely “playing Mass” in the Anglican Church, go for the real thing instead and join the church our Lord founded, the Catholic Church (which has also determined that Anglican orders are invalid)? :thumbsup:


#15

[quote=Anima Christi]How about instead of merely “playing Mass” in the Anglican Church, go for the real thing instead and join the church our Lord founded, the Catholic Church (which has also determined that Anglican orders are invalid)? :thumbsup:
[/quote]

That would be Apostolicae Curae, 1896, of course. As a RC, it is completely correct for you to affirm it. As Anglicans, we find it a sad and irrelevant artifact of that period of history, aside from the issue of any idea of corporate reunion.

The literature on AC is voluminous. For the best single statement of the RC position in it, see (the then Jesusit Father)Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION. For the best exposition of the Anglican position, see Fr. J. J. Hughes’ ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID and his STEWARDS OF THE LORD, the former concentrating on the history of what happened, the latter on the theology. Fr. Hughes is a RC convert, a former Anglican priest and the first such to be ordained sub conditione, when he crossed the Tiber.

Would you like us to stop praying for the Pope, too?

GKC


#16

[quote=GKC]That would be Apostolicae Curae, 1896, of course. As a RC, it is completely correct for you to affirm it. As Anglicans, we find it a sad and irrelevant artifact of that period of history, aside from the issue of any idea of corporate reunion.

The literature on AC is voluminous. For the best single statement of the RC position in it, see (the then Jesusit Father)Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION. For the best exposition of the Anglican position, see Fr. J. J. Hughes’ ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID and his STEWARDS OF THE LORD, the former concentrating on the history of what happened, the latter on the theology. Fr. Hughes is a RC convert, a former Anglican priest and the first such to be ordained sub conditione, when he crossed the Tiber.

Would you like us to stop praying for the Pope, too?

GKC
[/quote]

Your whole position re Anglican orders will become totally academic and irrelevant when they ordain female bishops. Their female “priests” are no priests at all and when they have female “bishops” then all future “ordinations” will be farcical.
Join the Catholic Church and be sure of your holy orders.


#17

[quote=rjs1]Your whole position re Anglican orders will become totally academic and irrelevant when they ordain female bishops. Their female “priests” are no priests at all and when they have female “bishops” then all future “ordinations” will be farcical.
Join the Catholic Church and be sure of your holy orders.
[/quote]

What you say is quite true, as far as it goes. But you erroneously assume that my sort of Anglican is the sort that is in communion with Canterbury, and with those who do things like put collars or miters on females. Nay, not so. Anyone here remember the poster Trad Ang? I’m that sort of Anglican.

GKC

Posterus traditus Anglicanus


#18

Hello GKC,

Chesterton…Nice.

Is there a website you could link so I can read more about

Trad Anglicans?

God Bless
Scylla


#19

[quote=scylla]Hello GKC,

Chesterton…Nice.
[/quote]

Thanks. Chesterton is a long time hobby of mine, as I said.

[quote=scylla]Is there a website you could link so I can read more about

Trad Anglicans?

God Bless
Scylla
[/quote]

Greetings, Scylla,

There are, alas, all too many of them. Since there are all too many Traditional Anglican (also called Continuing Anglican ) jurisdictions. It’s a result of a number of factors, most certainly including the issue of authority. Anglicans have that problem. But the largest groups of traditional Anglicans in the US are the Anglican Catholic Church, the Anglican Church in America (TradAng belongs to that group), and the Anglican Province of Christ the King. There are many others. Most of the groups in some sense split from each other; several are trying to recombine. Schismatic schismatics. Here’s some links. Browse a round a little.

Anglican Province of Christ the King

anglicanpck.org/

I notice a new appointment at the seminary there, a gentleman with an interesting background. My son in law, before being ordained to the diaconate, graduated from their St. Joseph of Arimathea Seminary.

Anglican Church in America

acahome.org/index.htm

This is Trad Ang’s jurisdiction. The larger group of which it is the most important part, the Traditional Anglican Communion, is the group that has been having talks with the RCC for some years. Opinions differ on what is being discussed and what it all means.

Anglican Catholic Church

anglicancatholic.org/

These, and most of the other Continuing Anglican jurisdictions, split from ECUSA and the World Wide Anglican Communion in the last 30 years or so, over issues relating to liturgy, the “ordination” of females, and similar silly things, though there are independent Anglican jurisdictions that predate these events, such as the Reformed Episcopal Church. For the most part, the current group of Continuing Anglicans tend to be over on the high church, Anglo-Catholic side of the Anglican spectrum, and affirm many of the doctrines that the RCC does. With exceptions.

Any questions, I’ll try.

GKC


#20

Fr. J. J. Hughes’ ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID and his STEWARDS OF THE LORD, the former concentrating on the history of what happened, the latter on the theology. Fr. Hughes is a RC convert, a former Anglican priest and the first such to be ordained sub conditione, when he crossed the Tiber

GKC, why are you not catholic? is it because you don’t think it is nessisary for unity in the church or do you hope that one day the catholic church becomes “anglican” and that the anglican church is the one true church like many orthodox christians do?

the way i see it, either rome is right, or we are all wrong and it doesn’t matter.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.