It looks like Helen Jacobi, Vicar of St Matthew's in the City will be preaching this Sunday on an inclusive equality for our church:
My sermon Sunday calls on #Synod2014 to welcome all equally behind the altar, in the pulpit, and at the altar to be married @StMatthewsNZ
— Helen Jacobi (@RevHelenJacobi) May 9, 2014
But will our church at this General Synod/Te Hinota Whanui offer a consistent sign of inclusive welcome to all "behind the altar"?
There are two areas of challenge for our church concerning inclusivism which are on the GS/HW agenda. One area, much canvassed here, concerns homosexuality. GS/HW will consider the possibility of paving the way for a partnered gay person to be considered canonically chaste and thus able, after priestly ordination to be "equally behind the altar" with those already agree to be chaste canonically (e.g. those who are celibate and those who are married heterosexually).
Another area concerns Methodist ministers and the possibility of making a move forward towards mutual recognition of their ministries with ours which, effectively, would mean we were open to welcoming non-episcopally ordained ministers "behind the altar." (Readers at this point should distinguish Methodist ministers acting as Methodist ministers in co-operating Anglican-Methodist churches (= current situation) from the possibility of Methodist ministers (who are ordained but not by a bishop) being recognised in solely Anglican contexts as though they are episcopally ordained Anglican priests.)
We could put some of the matters which figure in these issues in a couple of tables. The first is my interpretation of what a Consistently Open to Change representative might be thinking, the second is my interpretation of what an Inconsistently Open to Change representative might be thinking:
Consistently Open to Change
| Same Sex Blessings | Accept Methodists at our altars |
| Scripture |
Arguments rage but nothing in end said against
|
Jesus said nothing about ordination
|
Tradition
|
Need not stand in the way
|
Need not stand in the way
|
Would be inclusive to make change
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Could upset many people
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Would be welcomed by many
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Affect progress on unity with Rome
|
Probably (but not an issue)
|
Definitely (but not an issue)
|
Could have unintended consequences
|
Yes but worth proceeding anyway
|
Yes
|
Let’s press ahead
|
YES
|
YES
|
Inconsistently Open to Change
|
Same Sex Blessings
|
Accept Methodists at our altars
|
Scripture
|
Arguments rage but nothing in end said against
|
Jesus started apostolic succession/episcopacy and Methodists opted out re episcopacy
|
Tradition
|
Need not stand in the way
|
Must not be changed
|
Would be inclusive to make change
|
Yes
|
Yes but that doesn’t outweigh the reasons not to do it
|
Could upset many people
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Would be welcomed by many
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Affect progress on unity with Rome
|
Probably (but can live with it)
|
Definitely (and that's a consideration)
|
Could have unintended consequences
|
Yes but worth proceeding anyway
|
Yes and that’s why we shouldn’t go there
|
Let’s press ahead
|
YES
|
NO
|
So, to any GS/HW representative reading here, or for that matter anyone preaching this Sunday on inclusivity and equality in our church, it would be very interesting to see a response to the question I am posing here, of the width of 'inclusivism' of our church.
How wide is our inclusivism at this time?
If it extends to ordaining and licensing partnered gay ministers, will it extend to welcoming non-episcopally ordained Methodist ministers?
Our church has a history of progressive thinking on social and moral issues which kind of dries up when we start to think about other kinds of issues such as ordination and presidency of the eucharist. Yet ordination and blessings are matters of intense theological interest in respect of Anglican understanding of sacramental ministry. There is a theological integrity to opening up questions about marriage and ordination simultaneously! (Though I am sure it is a human accident that both issues happen to before GS/HW at this time - whether this is a divine 'accident' is another matter).
And, what do you think? Will our church be consistent in making changes in respect of Scripture and tradition?
One way of summing up our General Synod's business is to say that the most important question facing it is whether or not it will commit to moving forward on mutual recognition of Methodist ministers!
17 comments:
Greetings Peter
Our church, of course, has now for many years had a GSTHW ruling that ministers from the Negotiating Churches (that includes Methodists) may preside at our altars using our rites. As you will know, the Doctrine Commission ruled that this does not make them Anglican Eucharists.
I'm interested that you make no reference to the fundamental provisions of the Anglican Constitution which explicitly point to this debate.
Christ is Risen!
Bosco
It appears even if they aren't (although that is presumption) a lot of methodists consider themselves a part of apostolic succession, Just as Anglicans consider themselves officially speaking part of this tradition and the Catholic Church considers Anglican's are not part of the apostolic succession.
Is this acting out of legalism or the spirit of the law?
Considering:
Gal 1:1
Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead—
a.k.a. are you picking at straws Peter?
Hi Bosco
A reference to the constitution may yet squash all hot button issues coming to our Synod, including the motion seeking to amend the constitution :)
My interest in this post is more on the willingness to even debate matters which affect out understanding of and commitment to our tradition re the ordering of life and ministry.
Hi Jean
I am thinking of 'apostolic succession' in terms of doctrine of episcopacy. Some Methodists around the world do have bishops (and I do not know what connection they make with apostolic succession). Our NZ Methodist church is non-episcopal though I am sure they have an understanding of 'apostolic succession' re the passing on of apostolic doctrine.
I do not think it picking at straws to ask a question of how we as Anglicans understand the binding or non-binding nature of our traditions on the ordering of life and ministry.
Your theory, Peter, of the possibility of a 'divine accident' having brought about the inclusion of ordination and S/S blessing in the G.S. agenda certainly is a distinct possibility.
At Mass at St. Michael's this morning, we prayed that God's will be done - for our Church at this time. That's what I call trusting 'abandonment to the Divine Providence' - my only recourse at this juncture of our common life.
Hi Peter
It is just that you put apostolic succession with episcopacy. I understand the understanding : ) is our Bishops via the laying on of hands goes all the way back to the original Apostles. And as such our ministers are ordained via Bishops.
However, from what I understand Methodists have a similar process in ordination in that they are 'called' by God, their calling is accepted by the congregation and they go through quite a process to be ordained, including the laying on of hands by Presbyters (Elders) or what we would call priests. I would imagine they see this as being in line with the apostolic tradition as it involves the individuals call, then approval and the laying on of hands by church leaders.
Given the Methodist movement was C of E for a long time - it's distinguishing mark preaching to labourers and the poor the C of E had left off its list so to speak (meaning had I been there at that time I would have probably been with them). Only separating from the Anglican Church when practical purposes necessitated it. And except for Bishops its order of life and ministry remains similar to ours, more so probably than any other denomination.
Given some negotiation about the understanding of episcopacy by Methodist Ministers I think it would be an exciting move to welcome them back into our midst in an official sense. I don't see any scriptural reason for not doing so. There may be as you indicate possibly reasons around tradition but personally scripture for me still holds the trump card.
Hi Jean,
Yes, Methodists are very close to us in many respects save "hands on" episcopacy.
I have also been taught by Presbyterians that they understand ordination in terms of a 'corporate' episcopacy whereby oversight is shared across the presbytery (which together lay hands on the one being ordained).
Within the Anglican church I understand that - broadly speaking - evangelicals would muster very few objections to the idea of interchangeability of orders between (say) Methodists, Presbyterians and Anglicans [it's another topic for another day re Baptist and Pentecostal pastors]. And some evangelicals would raise no objections at all! But catholics within the Anglican church place a lot of value on ordination being the same ordination as the ancient church and as practised by the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, i.e. via the laying on of hands of the bishop. (In some ways it is a secondary issue that the bishop is a bishop in the apostolic succession).
For myself (as an evangelical) I am not sure what 'objections' I would muster but as a committed and loyal Anglican I would want our policy on receiving ministries of non-Anglican ministers into our life to be consistent with our past and empowering our unity in the present.
Incidentally, one of the grayest of gray areas is the recognition or otherwise of the ordinations of Anglican priests ordained by bishops in Anglican churches which are not formally part of the Anglican Communion!!
I’d have thought by now Peter you might have realized the notion of “inclusivism” was just far too blunt and imprecise an instrument for all the sorts of things you are trying to make it perform here.
Each of the matters you raise needs to be solved by their own merits, without recourse to trendy slogans, which move the masses who have their brains in neutral.
As for the Methodists: I sense the ghost of Michael Ramsey trying to hover over us ...
May be though I am sensing the ghost of George Orwell.
Hi Peter
Thanks for your reply.
I understand Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions would have difficulty with non-episcopal ordination. And the Catholic Church upholds being the only true apostolic church by its doctrine if not by all of the lay people who attend.
Will we as one church find true unity (all denominations) if we place our faith more in the specific ordering of our life and ministry (not withstanding the importance of this methodology in providing a structure for worship and service) than in the commonality of our belief and living out the belief of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ?
Accepting of course unity does not always have to constitute joining administratively/operationally - the methodist situation perhaps present at this time is more specific maybe to the situation of the needs of their churches and perhaps ours!
Maybe this is my low-church/congregationalist background coming through, but aren't all denominations' claims to being genuine heirs to the true church (as opposed to other denominations) pretty obviously ridiculous? Even the Baptists have their version, and the Pentes no doubt trace their 'true church' status to being called by the Holy Spirit when the other churches (with their claims to apostolic succession) had fallen away.
It seems pretty hypocritical for Anglicans to claim they get to carry on the Catholics' apostolic succession but the Methodists don't get to carry on the Anglicans' - perhaps our definition of apostolic succession includes us but not them, but it's very convenient to define it in that way.
I'd be happy to be proven wrong - I'm sure there are arguments for these beliefs, I've just never heard them.
Also, what's the argument for Jesus having established the episcopacy?
All this is not to say we should accept other denominations' ministers willy-nilly. But to try and justify that stance by apostolic succession seems pretty shoddy.
"How wide is our inclusivism at this time?"
Let me (after appearing out of nowhere) throw my 2 cents in along with Bryden in saying that this just isn't a question that even scratches at the surface of the matters raised here, and I particularly have in mind the blessing of same sex marriage.
It's not at all the case that on the one hand we've got smiling, loving people who are all about inclusion, and prunes baptised in vinegar on the other side who are all about exclusion.
The question - or at least one question that a certain in-the-city parish doesn't seem to appreciate - is whether we are united to Christ and part of the church to be shaped by it and changed, or whether we want to change the church until it becomes something that we're happy with.
Of course we are all for inclusion: "Whosoever will" is welcome. But it has never been part of the Christian message, whether in tradition or Scripture, that we welcome whosoever so that they can, in turn, require that the standards of the church are then altered to be more accommodating. If that's what is meant by inclusion then quite obviously we are not called to be inclusive.
There are people on both sides of the homosexuality debate who want to be "united to Christ and part of the church to be shaped by it and changed." And there are those on both sides who "want to change the church until it becomes something that [they're] happy with" - for example those who want to change the kingdom of God into an endorsement of patriarchal gender roles or a modern idea of gender complementarity.
Hi Ron
Please do not use the phrase 'anti-gay' here. It is an unhelpful phrase because it turns a group of Christians keen to be faithful to Scripture and tradition without bigotry or prejudice against gay people into something they are not.
Accordingly the comment below is redacted:
"Caleb, you're right here, in your observation that both sides of the moral arguments on Same-Sex relationships are equally keen to prioritise their own view-point.
However, intentional schism has already happened from the [conservative] camp - in N. America - and, potentially, with GAFCON.
Whereas, no-one from the pro-Gay side has actually left the A.C.C. - yet, at least!
"
The interesting and important thing about “schism” Ron, is that it actually works in various ways and so is enacted by various means.
For example, institutional attendance/membership is but one form. Another was clearly demonstrated when the PB of TEC said one thing in one meeting (of the Primates) and then went ahead and did quite another when back home - and this by two different PBs in the setting of two Primatial gatherings. And then again there is the GS - NB not GAFCON - meeting this year in Cairo in February, when their Primates established a “Primatial Oversight Council” (4b), as a counter, in their view, to the “dysfunctional ‘instruments of unity’”.
What therefore constitutes “schismatic” behaviour exactly? And what is to be viewed as a ‘nasty’ form of ‘breaking away’, “dividing” the Body of Christ, and what remedial to a serious problem? For don’t forget, the CoE/AC itself was founded on a form of “schism”!
I suppose I might test your own understanding of the Reformation situation, Bryden. As a member of the Anglican party; do you think we were right, or wrong, on principle? Was it schism or simply pragamtism?
Secondly; Do you think that ACNA, the schismatics and the GAFCON separatists, are on the right or wrong side of the current disputes? (Remembering you are part of a Church that does not recognise ACNA).
A lot depends on your replies, to indicate whether you, an Anglican, think you are a part of a schismatic, or an independent, Church - on principle
Perhaps more importantly, in the present situation of ACANZP and the possible outcome of our G.S.,
would you consider it necessary to 'breakaway' from your membership of ACANZP if Same Sex Blessings are approved?
For my part, I intend to stay with ACANZP - whatever the outcome. And this is where the rubber really 'hits the road' - concerning intentional schism.
Do you think that approval of Same Sex Blessings is a sufficient reason for you to leave ACANZP?
To answer your first batch of questions: the 16th C was a messy time of both schism and remedy for a serious problem - series of problems really. That is my understanding of the movement, a broad historical movement, in which the CoE was caught up, due furthermore to the niceties of annulment versus divorce and the papal states being caught with realpolitik issues regarding the French and Spanish (for don’t forget whose kin that poor wife of Henry’s was!). So; pragmatism it was not, IMHO; rather, it became the necessary path via Henry, Mary and Elizabeth (via poor Edward), ensuring a modus vivendi for the National Church.
Just so again today: politics and money and power all have their place to play still. Otherwise why were our Diocesan Bishops so wary of the likes of Affirm and their supposed stand re ss ‘marriage’ - amongst countless other matters ...? And why is the ACO so wedded to ‘nice relations’ with TEC? And why (lastly, to be even handed) the furore re ACNA et al and those African provinces and certain new, gay legislation?
Then there’s the wee matter of “conscience”, that question of “men’s hearts” that ER I took so seriously. (She also allowed Thomas Tallis to continue to make such very beautiful music!) Add to this the trichotomous distinctions of the Reformers’ ecclesiology - invisible Church, visible Church, specific organizations. The upshot: I am absolutely a member in good conscience of the current ACANZ&P - so far. Should that organization itself sever itself from the Apostolic Community of Faith, as revealed in the Holy Scriptures, then there are broadly two options, depending upon the specific call of God, whose Church it is anyway. Stay like Jeremiah amongst a people destined for Exile; or become one of the remnant (whose actual path was either staying in Israel or finally going to Egypt).
In principle, one needs to be able to read Church history via a biblical, figural lense, as well as know as best as one may the true lie of the landscape, where the Lord of the Church will establish the true marks/notes of the Church - in his time and in his way.
Whether Motion 30, with all its ‘qualifications’, goes so far as to “sever” itself from the Apostolic Community of Faith, at this point I truly don’t quite know. I shall together with friends and colleagues “ponder” how it ‘stacks up’, as they say; and how/whether it succeeds in addressing precisely those marks/notes adequately, or not.
" Should that organization itself sever itself from the Apostolic Community of Faith, as revealed in the Holy Scriptures, then there are broadly two options, depending upon the specific call of God, whose Church it is anyway. Stay like Jeremiah amongst a people destined for Exile; or become one of the remnant (whose actual path was either staying in Israel or finally going to Egypt)."
- Dr. Bryden Black -
Greetings Bryden. In the light of the acceptance of Same-Sex relationships in our Church - as becoming a possibility in six years - I, as a former Travel Manager * Advisor, could recommend
the cheapest way of your return to the African Continent.
Not because of ACANZP's attempt to 'sever itself from the Apostolic Community of Faith, as revealed in the Holy Scriptures' that you have postulated here; but because you may have considered us to do so.
I understand there's quite a lot of agro going on in the Gafcon provincial areas at this time. Maybe you could help damp things down a bit. However, I don't suggest South Africa, which is quite likely to applaud ACANZ's move in a more liberal direction.
Post a Comment