She is correct.
The solution is to populate the church of England with clergy from Nigeria, Rwanda and Uganda. Not only are they black but they have the side benefit of being Christians.
Anglican Samizdat
She is correct.
The solution is to populate the church of England with clergy from Nigeria, Rwanda and Uganda. Not only are they black but they have the side benefit of being Christians.
Don’t worry, David. Soon all the “white” people will be gone, and the churches will close. Just one more way to drive them out.
Well said David!
As I always say about the lower clergy and bishops, it’s not the sex but the sex-ethics that count …
The majority of the universal Church does not believe in female ordination. We need to continue to study the Biblical witness on the subject and Church History. As far as I know, Professor J. I. Packer still cannot support female ordination to the priesthood.
Michael, forgive me, but you are mistaken about that. He never thought it absolutely wrong, just that there was too much of it being done for the wrong reasons. He holds that the rightness depends on the gifting in particular cases. As I do, who read the Scriptures in the original languages (His Hebrew-Aramaic is much less extensive than mine). He knows that ordination as we practice it is not a NT subject, and therefore nobody’s ordination, male or female, is a NT subject. The NT speaks of commissioning sometimes accompanied by the laying-on of hands for particular tasks; the original seven Deacons were so commissioned, and Phoebe of Cenchreae may have been for her difficult, expensive and dangerous service. I have sometimes thought that perhaps the very unusual form of address at the start of Philippians, including as it does the Deacons, arises from the two quarrelling ladies being among the deacons. Greek would use the masculine-for-common-gender form of the definite article, here τοῖς, for a mixed group.
Please see this of mine: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/rom-16-dr-priscilla-turner/ . In the NT things were very far from having ossified into three orders, ‘professional’ ministry, questions of validity, indelibility, etc. Classical Anglican practice in church order is considered to be consistent with biblical norms, but not slavishly bound by them as in other church polities. If we human beings tend to look at Scripture for support for the social forms in which we grew up, that is a habit which needs to be checked now and again against what the Word does (and does not) actually say.
I never parade learning in sermons, but I did start Greek in 1952 and Hebrew in 1960. I bring up my heavy guns only when forced to. I am a daughter of the Vicarage and VERY Anglican
…
Dr. Packer wrote an article dated February 11, 1991 in Christianity Today, Vol. 35, No. 2, Pg 18, entitled, “Let’s Stop Making Women Presbyters.” Packer thought that “the present day pressure to make women presbyters owes more to secular, pragmatic and social factors than to any regard for biblical authority,” and this “[w]as one more sign of the undiscerning worldliness of late 20th century western Christianity.” According to one commentator, Packer had no biblical objection to women serving as deaconesses or pastoral assistants if they were able to conduct a distinctly womanly ministry in that position.
“The solution is to populate the church of England with clergy from Nigeria, Rwanda and Uganda. Not only are they black but they have the side benefit of being Christians.”
Rimshot!
Thank you, Dr. Turner. It is true that we have deacons, priests and bishops in the current Anglican Communion. But, not every Diocese has female bishops. It is true that the New Testament says very little about ordination. Today, there are women who believe women should not be ordained priests and that the Bible places restrictions on the ministry of women. There are men who believe women can serve as a priest and that there are no restrictions on women in ministry. It is true that most denominations currently take a hard line on female ordination. They allow female ordination and marginalize anyone against it as oppressive. Or they disallow it and marginalize anyone who advocates for it as a theological liberal. However, some allow female priests, but not female bishops. Perhaps, believing in the priesthood of all true believers is the answer to this divisive issue.
Yes, the female bishop has become the sticking-point in many places. Historically speaking the bishop (an ἐπίσκοπος = overseer, supervisor in the Pastorals) is just a senior presbyter (a πρεσβύτερος, nothing to do with ‘priesthood’) chosen by his peers. The moment a female can become a presbyter, the female bishop follows, however godly or ungodly her motivation (and not only the female is sometimes ungodly in motivation!). Decades ago I was somewhat startled to find John Stott quite happy about women presbyters provided that they worked as part of a team under ‘male headship’. He was of course fully aware that in the New Testament presbyters always come in bunches, one reason why, since we know no names, we do not know their sex. No ‘one-man-band’ monarchical clergy then! I remember reflecting at the time that though he appeared not to have seen this, sooner or later there was bound to be a woman presbyter who for good or bad reasons rose to the top and was consecrated a bishop.
As I have already said, the deacon, or διάκονος, is not sexed, nor is there a separate Gk. ‘deaconess’ term for a female deacon.
The priesthood of all believers is indeed often the key. It was rediscovered like the Gospel itself in the Reformation. Properly exercised it’s the antidote to unreformed priestcraft, clerical pride, clerical mystique, magical & superstitious thinking about those who preach, consecrate the Elements, confess penitents and absolve, false distinctions between ‘the Church’ and ‘the faithful’. As a layperson I can and should not only baptise in emergency, but defend & explain the Gospel to the unbeliever, hear confession, explain forgiveness, preach and lead in my own sphere as invited, and as is consistent with my other responsibilities domestic or elsewhere. Only as a married woman must I be in a right relation to my husband, for there is indeed hierarchy in Christian marriage. (This is not meant personally, but I do not think it fortunate when she ministers publicly as Rector while hubby sits in the pew. I never wanted to be more prominent in church than my late husband. The husband-wife presbyteral team is another matter.)
Meanwhile there does still need to be ‘decency and order’, but not at the expense of spiritually needy people. So I cannot do anything but commend what a very old (theologically sophisticated) friend of mine is doing in the way of ministry: “What keeps me going personally is a small independent church out in a small Prairie village called Gleichen. I go out there once a month to preach and to lead them in the Lord’s Supper. Lots of ecclesiological questions for those who think about that. But it seems to fill a need. The congregation is mainly farm families with some people from the Siksika First Nation. Very interesting.” I have written back to him: “A little joke that has occurred to me about your celebrating the HC while not in orders is that that would be fine in the Archdiocese of Sydney, seeing that you’re a layMAN. They’re like the Peebs, I sometimes want to ask them why they admit females to the HC … of course in the Jap camps they didn’t always have a priest to hand, let alone any bread and red wine either.”
A statement about the Church of England as too white does not really matter much in today’s world. COVID-19 pandemic has brought the entire world to its knees. Perhaps, God can use it to abolish the existing world order, and church structures in order to prepare us for the Second Coming. However, this process may take a very long time. Individual humans don’t usually live long enough to witness many significant changes.