Fr. Calvin Robinson "Cancelled" at the Mere Anglicanism Conference

1/22/24 Update: The "blowup" I mentioned below refers to the explosion that occurred in the comments section of the Mere Anglicanism Facebook page.  Mere Anglicanism has now apparently deleted comments and turned off commenting.  I managed to get screen shots of most of them before that happened.

__________________________________________

The good news is that it blew up in ACNA's face.  The bad news is that ACNA will never, ever address the problem.  It has chosen to live with its oxymoronic and suidical "dual integrities" policy.  Trads need to get out of there.  Just do it, already.

Cancelled From Mere Anglicanism

Comments

[Bruce Atkinson]

Indeed, who can deny that “dual integrities” is an oxymoron! Either we follow the scriptures regarding the role of women in our churches and families… or we don’t.

However, we need to examine the “whole council of God.” So let me tell some more truth about what the scriptures reveal about this issue. It is not at all the same as the homosexuality issue where there are absolutely no exceptions in either Old Testament or New Testament that this behavior is an egregious sin that will keep a person out of the Kingdom of God (e.g., 1 Cor 6:9).
No, the role of women in God’s kingdom on earth has clearly had some exceptions in the Bible, where women have had authority without divine judgment or criticism about it.

The fact that Jesus Himself elevated women (and their roles) above what was regarded as normative in His culture (women were virtual chattel, not even to be spoken to in the street) tells us a lot about the teleological direction we could expect to occur over time in the Kingdom of God by the revelation of scripture made evident by the Holy Spirit. Despite Paul's admonition to Timothy about women's disqualification to have authority over men, Paul was not shy about allowing women to lead where his own welfare (and thus that of the gospel) was concerned (as seen in Romans 16:1-4, and certainly in his teaching in Galatians 3:24-29 where egalitarianism is taught as being part of our freedom in Christ versus the Jewish law).

Exceptions can be found in the scriptures that go against the social-ecclesiastic rule of women not being allowed positions of authority among God's people. Note also that this is an organizational rule not a moral law. To allow women to be in authority over men in most ecclesiastic situations is foolishness I admit, but it is not regarded anywhere in the scriptures as ‘sin.’ The New Testament reveals that there were women deaconesses and women prophets in NT churches… without any criticism by Paul or other Apostles. How far should we generalize Peter’s point that the Church consists of the “priesthood of ALL believers”?

But I must emphasize that these scriptural exceptions to the rule (like Deborah the judge in the OT) were in fact exceptions. Jesus did not choose any of His many women disciples to be Apostles and no women wrote the books of the NT. Therefore, ACNA is not wrong to also have exceptions... but they must be kept relatively rare (as exceptions) and never turned into a general WO rule (as TEC and the Church of England have done). The presence of women deacons and sub-presbyters under three levels of male headship in ACNA (rector, Bishop, and Archbishop) do not violate the principle of male headship. Where some ACNA dioceses go wrong is continuing to have some female rectors, who by definition have authority over men in the church. This is an error which needs to be corrected. But I must say, we are thankful that ACNA canons prohibit female bishops.

So let’s get our “single integrity” correct here according to the scriptures and reason, Calvin Robinson!

[Embryo Parson]

I must say, Bruce, that this is a very odd argument. You begin it by acknowledging the oxymoronic quality of the term "dual integrities". So far, so good. Glad to hear you say so. But then, the lions share of your comment begins with the word, "however", from which you proceed to "tell some more truth about what the scriptures reveal about this issue" in accordance with what you believe to be the whole "council" of God. What you sent forth in this explanation is merely the same tired, old argument about biblical exceptions to male leadership that has been answered repeatedly, and definitively, by those scholars and clergy who oppose the ordination of women to clerical office. Let me be emphatic: none of this, absolutely none of it, can be used, as pro-WO folks do, to justify the ordination of a woman as deacon, priest or bishop, even as an exception. To demur on this is to commit a whopper of a non sequitur. The conclusion simply doesn't follow. This kind of exception must not just be "rare." It must not happen at all, and for the ACNA to keep its "dual integrities" policy in place is to put itself in opposition not only to the whole "council" of God, but to historic and settled Catholic faith and order.

Nor is the practice justified by arguing that it is acceptable to ordain women so long as they are not elevated to the position of rector or bishop. They are not to be ordained at all, not as a liturgical/transitional deacon, not as a priest, and not as a bishop. Full stop.

By my lights as a Catholic Anglican, the definitive work on this issue is The Rev. Dr. Manfred Hauke's book Women in the Priesthood?: A Systematic Analysis in the Light of the Order of Creation and Redemption. I urge you and everyone following this exchange to read it if you haven't done so.

[Gerry T. Neal]

In both Testaments, there is a clear distinction between two types of leadership appointed by God. The difference between them corresponds directly to the difference between God's Providence operating through the natural order that He has created in the world and His performing a miracle. God established orderly authorities in national Israel, first spiritual, in the office of the Leviticsal prieshood under the Aaroniic High Priesthood, then civic when the kingdom was established. In these, authority was passed on in an ordinary manner. He also, however, raised up leaders on an individual basis and directly betwowed authority on them. The judges are the example in the civic sphere, the prophets in the spiritual. In the New Testament, the Apostles were given both kinds of leadership and authority by Jesus Christ. They were the original priests and bishops, who passed their episcopal authority on to their successors, established the presbyterate within the prieshood under them, and the deaconate for other-than-priestly ministry. It is from these ordinary orders - and hence ordination - that women have been prohitbited by Scripture and traditiion. The other type of authority - where God directly raises an individual up to leadership - cannot be passed on, and being a direct act of God is not subject to the rules governing ordinary leadership, just as the miraculous is not subject to the "laws of nature". This difference is the explanation of the handful of exceptions to male leadership in the Bible. Those who claim extraordinry, direct, leadership, however, are subject to the Biblical tests of a prophet. By their fruit they shall be known.