Why All The Fuss

The following is from the Tract (Why All The Fuss) by the Reverend Stanley R. Sinclair SSC, a priest of the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada. Due to space we regret we have had to make some minor amendments, shortened text and omit the appendix and references made by Fr. Sinclair. The complete Tract, printed by the Convent Society is available from St. Joseph's Monastery, 2 Auburn Avenue, Spryfield, Nova Scotia, B3R 1K4 Canada.

WHY does the Traditional Anglican Communion maintain that the Orders of Deacon, Priest and Bishop cannot include women.

          The Christian Church at the end of the Second Millennium is going through a crisis at least as severe as that in the 16th century, but from it, I believe, a new Reformation will renew the vitality of the Church's mission.
          The result will be a new alignment of the Churches, as the present structures crumble. The Roman Catholic Church, in North America, Australia and in some European countries, is in deep division; the official position of the Church is not shared by all the bishops, priests and laity. The issues include rebellion against church teaching, women in the priesthood, birth control and marriage of the clergy. The Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church in the USA are shrinking at a great rate, the divisive issues ranging from socio-political controversy to women priests to liturgical change. The United Church has split over the ordination of practising homosexuals. Lutherans, Presbyterians and even the Orthodox are suffering from internal dissension. The consequence of all this has been the weakening of the Church's mission. For example, the Anglican Church is growing rapidly in the Third World, where a cohesive adherence of the faith, order and traditions of the Church is still strong.

WE WHO ARE IN THE TRADITIONAL ANGLICAN MOVEMENT, no matter the names we call ourselves, are trying to give witness to the eternal truths of the Gospel, and the faith and spirituality and order (ministry) of the Church as we have received them. This is not a case of being old-fashioned, or obstructionist, or "anti" anybody, but of a consistent and unswerving commitment to the vows we made at our Confirmation (and for clergy, the oaths taken at Ordination and induction).

The real cause of all the controversy today goes deeper than any of the issues mentioned. It comes down to this : "Will you stand up for the Gospel of Christ without addition or subtraction?"

            What is so often overlooked in all this is that we want to be true to the will of God. The Church exists to be His witness. His agency for the salvation of humanity. We must always seek to do things His way, not our way. And how can we know God's will except by what we have learnt through the words and actions of His Son?
             Orthodox Christianity is under attack on all sides. This is not the first time in history. Arianism (which denied that Christ was the eternal Son of God - making him a demi-god instead of the Jesus Christ of history) flourished in the fourth century and nearly "swamped" the Church. Orthodoxy prevailed in the end. We pray that this will happen again.

The controversy grows out of the drive for a new religion. What the proponents of change want to do is to take the shell of Christianity (including real estate, endowments and as many of the membership as will sit still for this)...and then they want to fill this shell with entirely new content. Instead of the Bible, there will be an expurgated version, leaving out everything which does not pass the test of "political correctness". The Bible would no longer be the authority and official teaching of the Christian faith; more like recommended reading, still used in church services; whereas each person would make up his own pastiche of faith from the many ideas loose in the Church at the time.

           Christ would no longer be recognised as Lord and Saviour, nor as the Son of God. The Trinitarian faith would cease to be the standard of orthodox Christian theology. Feminist theologies, including the recognition of ancient fertility goddesses, would be incorporated, or at least tolerated. Baptism would become simply initiation, Holy Communion, a supreme act of fellowship and "togetherness". Prayer would be for some a power, in the new age sense to control our nature and to some extent that of creation around us; for others it would become only a kind of self-hypnosis.
           The newly-won place in the ministry of many churches would eventually become meaningless: the apostolic order is to be replaced by a Mormon-like pastoral and "priestly" ministry, with minimum standards of education, retaining only an elite of "professionals", the administrative mandarins of the Church.
            Homosexual relations would be "sanctified" by the Church. Practising homosexuals would be accepted knowingly for ordination. Abortion would be recognised as a legitimate practice among Christians, along with euthanasia. Marriage would no longer be contracted through church ceremonies, and there would be services for divorce as well as matrimony.
            This is not the product of malice or a fertile imagination. It is drawn from the writings, the conferences, the discussions going on in the Christian world today. All of the above have been accepted to some extent already within most Christian denominations, as they move further and further from their moorings.

Where does the question of the ordination of women fit into all this? At first thought, for a great many people, it does not fit at all. The churches are full of devout women who do not hold any of the extreme ideas or positions just mentioned. Most of the Christian world has a great devotion for a woman, Mary, who is the greatest human being who has ever lived (since her son was both human and divine). God chose her to bear Jesus the Christ, His only begotten Son. Women have played prominent roles in the Church since the earliest days, including those who have headed large religious orders involving thousands of women and the co-ordination of their worldwide activities. Christian history is peopled with the likes of St. Mary Magdalene, St. Helena, St. Hilda, St. Hildegarde, St. Clare and St. Teresa; Hannah More, Evelyn Underhill, Dorothy Sayers, Catherine Doherty and Mother Teresa. The spiritual influence of mothers, clergy wives, and devout women in the parishes over the centuries is incalculable. Most of the teachers of religion for the past two centuries have been women. Thousands have occupied the ancient New Testament office of deaconess with distinction. With increasing parochial organization and synodical government, women have had key roles on every level of the Church, and have been accepted. Whatever the deficiencies in the social system, the Church has honoured the Christian woman.

Why then the fuss about ordaining women as priests or bishops? Here are the reasons why the historic apostolic order should be maintained:

(1) THE NEW TESTAMENT PRECEDENT : Jesus Christ chose only men for his apostolate, even though he welcomed women into the inner circle of decipleship; even though outside Judaism (whose taboos he often openly breached) the priesthood of women was widespread. They were chosen to act in His name; to represent Him, the Son of God, to be as it were "ikons" of Christ in the mission of the Church, in the shepherding of the flock, and in the administration of His sacraments.

Why would God choose only men? We might as well ask, why he chose only women to bear children, or why our distinctive characteristics are already determined in the womb. There is no answer in a sense. Jesus said, "the wind blows where it will". He spoke of the Holy Spirit, but the application is clear: God chooses, God acts as He sees fit. This is in no way a question of superiority or inferiority, anymore than the colour of our hair or eyes. The men who are called of God to the sacred ministry (and whose call is authenticated by the Church) are a relative handful; chosen not for their extraordinary worldly gifts, but because God inexplicably wants them. Few men are ever a part of the Church's ranks of Deacons, Priests or Bishops.

St. Paul spoke of the deacon or bishop (and it was from the episcopate that the eldership or priesthood has sprung) as "the husband of one wife." He also said that women were not to speak in church, i.e., conduct the liturgy or preach. The teachings of the New Testament for us is binding.

(2) THE CHURCH'S TRADITION : Since various cults had priestesses, and many pagan religions continued to do so widely during the first five or six centuries of the Christian era, the question of admitting women to Holy Orders cropped up from time to time, and was rejected; we have the evidence of the "mind of the Church" expressed in some of the councils.

(3) THE DEMAND FOR CATHOLICITY. Within the Anglican Communion, quite aside from the parallel Traditional Anglican Communion, there are women priests and bishops in some branches, none in others. So there is the curious situation of a church calling itself "catholic", meaning "universal", which does not have a universally recognized ministry. This is because of unilateral action, taken against the advice of the Lambeth Conference, which destroyed the internal integrity of the Anglican ministry. Indeed it was first done illegally in the United States.

(4) THE ECUMENICAL DIMENSION : The Christian community is largely made up of Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, who together constitute 80% of the world population of Christian believers.

Anglicanism does differ in some ways from each of these, especially from the Roman Catholic Church; but in ways reflecting changes which Rome made: enforcing clerical celibacy after 900 years; demanding acceptance not only of papal supremacy, but in the mid-19th century, papal infallibility. But the Anglican Church has always regarded itself as the Catholic Church of the English speaking world, with a legitimate historical claim to have all the credentials of Catholicism: and orthodox, biblical and credal faith, apostolic succession of bishops, the sacraments and a liturgy in the continuous stream of Christian devotion.
           With the acceptance of a major change in the order of the Church (ie., ordination of women), without an ecumenical council having met and decided the matter, the Anglican Church separated itself from its very own moorings, and became a sect, making internal rules regardless of the ecumenical effect. The hope of Christians coming together through inter-communion and joint recognition of ministries, except among protestant groups with no claim to apostolic or catholic credentials, has virtually disappeared over the past fifteen years.

Unhappily, the question of the ordination of women has been labelled a "human rights" issue by those who are proponents and know that their theological and ecclesiological arguments are shaky.

The Traditional Anglican Movement has far more women members than men, and they have elected to leave the comfortable pew behind, often to worship in living rooms of makeshift chapels. The greatest opposition in the Church of England, numerically, is not from the clergy, but from a large organization, Women Against Ordination of Women, which includes some brilliant academics, writers and politicians, as well as people in less exalted walks of life.
             Without question, some men oppose women in the priesthood because they just don't like the idea of a woman being in charge; they are, I believe, few and far between. They are more than matched by the militant feminists, within the Churches, some of whom, in national church women's meetings, have advocated matriarchal society! But most men of today have worked with women on the job, and some of us have had women as our immediate superiors.

But the ministry of Christ, of priest and bishop, should be at the call of God, and at His call only. Why would God extend this call to women after two thousand years?

            There is only one way to decide, and that is through an ecumenical council of the Christian Church. That is still possible. But would those who have demanded ordination, have even in a sense "crashed" the ranks of the ministry as in the USA some years ago, accept the decision of such a council? They would not even wait for the Anglican Communion to reach a consensus, much less the entire Christian world.
            Now I must express a personal opinion: that this issue, like a number of others, has been used by outside forces to infiltrate and change the Church into something entirely different, and to disrupt the peace of the Church. So far they are succeeding.

Having said this, I must add that there are certainly many women who have been ordained who are very capable and sincere. No question about that. Because of this issue, some women have been offended by the supposition that those who oppose the priesthood of women deny the true dignity of womanhood. I have tried to show, and am thoroughly convinced, that this is not so.
       I urge any woman who has so far thought of the ordination of women as an issue of fair play for women to take another look, and to see how this matter has not only divided Christendom and therefore weakened the Church, but has also been the occasion for alien ideologies and practices to creep in.
       I urge any man who has felt the need to show his solidarity with women who have been denied full justice in the workplace also to think again before he supposes that this is the same question all over again. it is not.

          The Traditional Anglican Movement includes clergy who have had to sacrifice their professional standing, lose or greatly diminish their incomes, and in some cases face a great deal of hostility and misunderstanding. There are laity who have been shunned by former "friends" in the Church. Since the Anglican Church of Canada adopted its policy of ordaining women, any opposition has been muzzled by a conscience clause. Now that clause is "out" and any priest or lay person unable to accept women clergy is no longer welcome to stay. The Anglican Church, which was once comprehensive, will not even accept for ordination anyone who opposes the ordination of women. Many congregations which have wanted to remain, as a whole, faithful to historic Anglican tradition have had to leave behind church buildings which they bought and paid for. Those with title to their property, in most cases, have had to go to court to establish their right to retain it. These, I would argue, are real examples of a lack of justice.
             The Traditional Anglican Movement is not, however, mostly a protest movement, but just what it claims to be, the Continuing Church, the Anglicanism practised through the centuries, which spread from being the established faith of one small island to become a worldwide fellowship, with over seventy million believers on nearly every continent.
              We tried, and failed, to influence the course of events in the "official" body of the Anglican Church. But we have not left it behind, we are maintaining and carrying on the true life of the Church, as it were, "underground". Because truth is not decided by public opinion, survey or ballot, we are not concerned whether we are a minority or a majority. We are upholders of the Catholic faith, witnesses to our Anglican heritage.
              God, not a Synod, will decide the fate of Anglicanism. The present trends indicate that, unless many of the mainline denominations actually join forces, they will be reduced to small sects within a generation. The realignment of Christianity of which I have spoken will probably take place within a few decades. We believe that God inspired the Anglican Tradition, and that through the Continuing Church this magnificent tradition within Christianity will go on indefinitely.
                Our prayer is that all those who sincerely want to keep the Anglican Church alive, not just the official denomination, but what it once stood for - will join us in this endeavour. Then in peace we may worship God, tell others of Christ, pray, and do our utmost to live the Christian life faithfully and productively, to the honour and praise of God.