We applaud our Anglican bishops’ willingness to reject neocolonial demands to accept the hegemony of the sexual revolution. But we are concerned that in an admirable attempt to resist the liberal project ...
I am troubled by your assessment that "[Rites for women's ordination] have come primarily from a minority of the world’s churches, those that are heretical and dying. This is a new and (mostly) Western development." As far as I can tell, many of the Provinces globally who ordain women to the presbyterate are not Western at all. Anglican Provinces in Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, South Sudan, the DRC, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Chile, the Indian Ocean, and not a few others all ordain women to the presbyterate. Moreover, all of them are participants in GAFCON and the Anglican realignment more broadly, having taken a firm stand in favor of a traditional Christian sexual ethic. These Churches are neither heretical nor dying, but are (in many cases) large, vibrant Provinces who cling to the Church's Scriptures and traditions and who faithfully proclaim the Gospel in their respective countries. Many (if not all) of them participated in the gathering that issued the Kigali statement, which, as you note, delivered a bold witness to both the Anglican communion as a whole, and to its Western churches in particular, declaring that they will not yield to the spirit of this age, nor capitulate to Western influence, but will continue to obey the teaching of Scripture regarding human sexuality. Even if you disagree with the practice of ordaining women to the presbyterate embraced by these Churches, your claim that this development is "(mostly) Western" and comes primarily from churches that are "heretical and dying" obscures the facts on the ground. At best, it paints a partial, misleading picture of a complicated situation. At worst, it risks bearing false witness against our faithful Anglican brothers and sisters in the Global South. If we as God's people are to disagree with one another over this issue, let us make every effort to do so in charity and good faith.
The real tradition (prior to Henry of Ghent’s innovations) sees scripture, tradition and reason as an undivided whole. Certainly the Gafcon rebels are modern positivists and liberals. I agree. But their claims to be resisting a supposed neocolonialism are surely rubbish. They are only defending horror at gay people and insistence on female subordination with pre-Christian tribal origins. As to the idea that Anglicanism has to wait for the consent of all the denominations on these things it is surely a fiction when the main other bodies involved regard Anglicanism as deviant anyway. The arguments for ordaining women are perfectly in accord with a rational development of scriptural tradition which is really what the greatest Fathers insisted upon from Origen onwards. The same applies to blessing same-sex friendships as advocated by theologians as impeccably great (and not Anglican) as Florensky. That is not marriage and only the prurient will wish to go into the issues of the physical expression of such friendship. The rigorously minded will insist that ‘sex’ proper, as John Donne first called it, only happens between male and female and is inherently connected to the possibility of procreation. Large numbers of thinking Africans, especially Anglo-Catholics have no problems with all of this. A sound resistance to secular hegemony must not seek to defend the indefensible.
Oddly, this feels like an admission that Scripture on its own does not actually condemn homosexuality or women’s ordination. The Biblical case seems weak if you so desperately need a (notably flawed) third party to uphold it.
“Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron…” 1 Timothy 4:1-2
Dr. Boersma,
I am troubled by your assessment that "[Rites for women's ordination] have come primarily from a minority of the world’s churches, those that are heretical and dying. This is a new and (mostly) Western development." As far as I can tell, many of the Provinces globally who ordain women to the presbyterate are not Western at all. Anglican Provinces in Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, South Sudan, the DRC, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Chile, the Indian Ocean, and not a few others all ordain women to the presbyterate. Moreover, all of them are participants in GAFCON and the Anglican realignment more broadly, having taken a firm stand in favor of a traditional Christian sexual ethic. These Churches are neither heretical nor dying, but are (in many cases) large, vibrant Provinces who cling to the Church's Scriptures and traditions and who faithfully proclaim the Gospel in their respective countries. Many (if not all) of them participated in the gathering that issued the Kigali statement, which, as you note, delivered a bold witness to both the Anglican communion as a whole, and to its Western churches in particular, declaring that they will not yield to the spirit of this age, nor capitulate to Western influence, but will continue to obey the teaching of Scripture regarding human sexuality. Even if you disagree with the practice of ordaining women to the presbyterate embraced by these Churches, your claim that this development is "(mostly) Western" and comes primarily from churches that are "heretical and dying" obscures the facts on the ground. At best, it paints a partial, misleading picture of a complicated situation. At worst, it risks bearing false witness against our faithful Anglican brothers and sisters in the Global South. If we as God's people are to disagree with one another over this issue, let us make every effort to do so in charity and good faith.
Peace
Thank you for so eloquently pointing out this blatant error
I have great difficulty with this man being employed by the seminary from which I earned two degrees.
The real tradition (prior to Henry of Ghent’s innovations) sees scripture, tradition and reason as an undivided whole. Certainly the Gafcon rebels are modern positivists and liberals. I agree. But their claims to be resisting a supposed neocolonialism are surely rubbish. They are only defending horror at gay people and insistence on female subordination with pre-Christian tribal origins. As to the idea that Anglicanism has to wait for the consent of all the denominations on these things it is surely a fiction when the main other bodies involved regard Anglicanism as deviant anyway. The arguments for ordaining women are perfectly in accord with a rational development of scriptural tradition which is really what the greatest Fathers insisted upon from Origen onwards. The same applies to blessing same-sex friendships as advocated by theologians as impeccably great (and not Anglican) as Florensky. That is not marriage and only the prurient will wish to go into the issues of the physical expression of such friendship. The rigorously minded will insist that ‘sex’ proper, as John Donne first called it, only happens between male and female and is inherently connected to the possibility of procreation. Large numbers of thinking Africans, especially Anglo-Catholics have no problems with all of this. A sound resistance to secular hegemony must not seek to defend the indefensible.
Oddly, this feels like an admission that Scripture on its own does not actually condemn homosexuality or women’s ordination. The Biblical case seems weak if you so desperately need a (notably flawed) third party to uphold it.
“Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron…” 1 Timothy 4:1-2
Is Western Orthodoxy the answer?
https://substack.com/@stevenberger/note/c-165999349?r=1nm0v2&utm_source=notes-share-action&utm_medium=web
There’s been a “reset?”