Russia Is Not Our Enemy

The Western liberal state is our enemy.  Radical Islam is our enemy.  But Orthodox Russia is not our enemy.

We need a paradigm shift in the West that would pave the way for a genuine Northern Alliance of Russia, Europe, and North America, as all three face similar existential threats in the decades ahead. In an uncertain and ever more brutal world, the Northerners may finally consider banding together, lest they be defeated in detail. - The North Worth Saving

Anglican leaders received in Moscow

Anglican Leaders Received in Moscow

For the Record: From ACC Metropolitan Mark Haverland on the Term "Anglican Catholic"

With apparent reference to my previous blog entry:

On the term ‘Anglican Catholic’: in the United States ‘Anglican Catholic’ is a registered service mark of the Anglican Catholic Church. That is, it is the ACC's property and may not be used by others without infringing on the ACC's rights. The term is also protected internationally in many places under the Madrid Protocol. The ACC registered its name in part with the experience of the Roman Catholic Church in mind. ‘Roman Catholic’ was not registered by the Roman Church, and people with no connection to the papacy are free to call themselves, misleadingly, Roman Catholic. The ACC has no wish to be unfriendly or difficult. The name ‘Anglican Church of North America’ was used by the ACC long before ACNA came along and is preserved in our Constitution and Canons. Since we did not actively use the ACNA name, however, we made and make no objection to its use by others. But we do object when others use ‘Anglican Catholic’ and, particulary when the use is by ecclesial bodies with no relation to us, insist on our service mark rights.

Thanks for letting me know, Your Grace.   I had a discussion with Fr. Munn a few months ago in which the term "Anglican Catholic" appeared to be used in a more generic sense, as a synonym, I thought, for "Anglo-Catholic."   I appreciate your setting the record straight.

First Things: The Uncertain Future of Protestantism

Last Tuesday, leading representatives of different models of conservative American Protestantism gathered at Biola University to discuss and debate the “Future of Protestantism.” Peter Leithart, an ecumenically-oriented apostle of “Reformational catholicism” faced down Fred Sanders of Biola, a spokesman for the “unwashed masses of low-church evangelicals” and Carl Trueman of Westminster Seminary, an unapologetic representative of Calvinistic confessionalism. Those hoping for a hard-hitting debate, or a quick and full resolution of the questions, were bound to be disappointed: the three interlocutors were much too patient, irenic, and thoughtful for that. No, it was a conversation, and like almost all good conversations, inconclusive, an invitation to further conversation.

Here's the 2.5-hour video:

All three speakers granted that some kind of reunion with Rome (and with Orthodoxy) must be eventual goals for Protestantism, which could not think of itself as the sole bearer of the church’s future. All three insisted therefore that Protestantism should be characterized more by its positive witness than by a negative self-definition over against its enemies. All three also managed to agree that the content of this witness was largely set by the terms of the early Protestant confessions, that the solas of the Reformation constituted fundamental truths that must remain the ground of future Protestant ecumenical engagement. Finally, all agreed that the best forms of ecumenism, for the foreseeable future at least, should be local and ad hoc, involving such small but powerful gestures as learning to pray with and for local Catholic and Orthodox churches. . . .

The differences that did emerge, then, were in part simply dispositional. Leithart is a cheery optimist about Rome’s willingness and ability to reform and meet Protestants half-way, Sanders an optimist about the ability of low-church evangelicals to gradually remedy their defects through patient retrieval of the tradition, Trueman a determined pessimist about both possibilities.

They were also in part theological. On the issue of sacraments, which dominated much of the discussion (partly due to Leithart’s firm insistence on the absolute necessity of weekly communion), Sanders said little, given his low-church Zwinglianism on the issue, Trueman admitted their importance but stressed the centrality of the Word, and Leithart camped out on his own more sociological De Lubacian sacramentology.

They were also in part a matter of pastoral sensibility, with Leithart seeing the greatest pastoral danger in the scandal of disunity, Trueman in the relativization of the doctrines of grace and subsequent weakening of salvific assurance. And of course, part of the difference was rhetorical: Leithart continued to identify “Protestantism” by its most widespread contemporary expressions, and accordingly called for its abolition, while Sanders and Trueman remained puzzled by this odd attempt to define something in terms of its most defective forms, rather than its historic essence.

This last difference, however, highlights perhaps the most important and persistent difference between the speakers, one that remained sadly unexplored: a difference over the nature of history. Put briefly, Leithart was skeptical that there is such a thing as a historical essence to Protestantism, at least one that deserves to be jealously preserved. His stirring opening statement invoked a repeating Biblical pattern of creation, death, and resurrection to new creation to suggest that Protestantism is not a diseased form that needs to be restored to its original health, but the historically-necessary senescence of something bound to die and rise again as some new and unforeseen synthesis. (Leithart’s reference to the neo-Hegelian philosopher Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy suggested that the Hegelian resemblance is no coincidence). Within such a schema, no historical movement, however necessary, valuable, and more-or-less true, can expect to endure unchanged. Thus, despite the resemblance of his “Reformational catholicism” to, well, the Reformation, Leithart would rather free us from the unhealthy attachment to something ultimately bound for replacement. While for Sanders and Trueman, the future of Protestantism must be an extension (not without any change, of course) of its past and present, for Leithart it will be a new, unpredictable work of the Spirit.

I'm with Leithart.  I truly can't see it being any other way, especially for classical Anglicanism, which despite its classicality is way ahead of the curve.

Leithart: The End of Protestantism

"The Reformation isn’t over. But Protestantism is, or should be."

Protestantism ought to give way to Reformational catholicism. Like a Protestant, a Reformational catholic rejects papal claims, refuses to venerate the Host, and doesn’t pray to Mary or the saints; he insists that salvation is a sheer gift of God received by faith and confesses that all tradition must be judged by Scripture, the Spirit’s voice in the conversation that is the Church.

Though it agrees with the original Protestant protest, Reformational catholicism is defined as much by the things it shares with Roman Catholicism as by its differences. Its existence is not bound up with finding flaws in Roman Catholicism. While he’s at it, the Reformational catholic might as well claim the upper-case “C.” Why should the Roman see have a monopoly on capitalization?

A Protestant exaggerates his distance from Roman Catholicism on every point of theology and practice, and is skeptical of Roman Catholics who say that they believe in salvation by grace. A Reformational Catholic cheerfully acknowledges that he shares creeds with Roman Catholics, and he welcomes reforms and reformulations as hopeful signs that we might at last stake out common ground beyond the barricades. (Protestants also exaggerate differences from one another, but that’s a story for another day.). . . .

Some Protestants don’t view Roman Catholics as Christians, and won’t acknowledge the Roman Catholic Church as a true church. A Reformational Catholic regards Catholics as brothers, and regrets the need to modify that brotherhood as “separated.” To a Reformational Catholic, it’s blindingly obvious that there’s a billion-member Church of Jesus Christ centered in Rome. Because it regards the Roman Catholic Church as barely Christian, Protestantism leaves Roman Catholicism to its own devices. “They” had a pedophilia scandal, and “they” have a controversial pope. A Reformational Catholic recognizes that turmoil in the Roman Catholic Church is turmoil in his own family. . . .

A Protestant’s heroes are Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and their heirs. If he acknowledges any ancestry before the Reformation, they are proto-Protestants like Hus and Wycliffe. A Reformational Catholic gratefully receives the history of the entire Church as his history, and, along with the Reformers, he honors Augustine and Gregory the Great and the Cappadocians, Alcuin and Rabanus Maurus, Thomas and Bonaventure, Dominic and Francis and Dante, Ignatius and Teresa of Avila, Chesterton, de Lubac and Congar as fathers, brothers, and sisters. A Reformational Catholic knows some of his ancestors were deeply flawed but won’t delete them from the family tree. He knows every family has its embarrassments. . . .

A Protestant is indifferent or hostile to liturgical forms, ornamentation in worship, and sacraments, because that’s what Catholics do. Reformational Catholicism’s piety is communal and sacramental, and its worship follows historic liturgical patterns. A Protestant wears a jacket and tie, or a Mickey Mouse t-shirt, to lead worship; a Reformational Catholic is vested in cassock and stole. To a Protestant, a sacrament is an aid to memory. A Reformational Catholic believes that Jesus baptizes and gives himself as food to the faithful, and doesn’t avoid speaking of “Eucharist” or “Mass” just because Roman Catholics use those words.

Reformational Catholicism meets George Weigel’s Evangelical Catholicism coming from the direction of Rome, and gives it a hearty handshake.

Protestantism has had a good run. It remade Europe and made America. It inspired global missions, soup kitchens, church plants, and colleges in the four corners of the earth. But the world and the Church have changed, and Protestantism isn’t what the Church, including Protestants themselves, needs today. It’s time to turn the protest against Protestantism and to envision a new way of being heirs of the Reformation, a new way that happens to conform to the original Catholic vision of the Reformers.

Amen.

Heavenly Participation: The Weaving of a Sacramental Tapestry

Just finished this book by Hans Boersma, who holds the J. I. Packer Chair in Theology at Regent College in Vancouver, B.C.  Highly recommended.  The author calls for a return to the "sacramental ontology" of the Platonist-Christian synthesis of the early Church Fathers.  The reviews at the Amazon page are definitely worth reading.  Bishop Ray Sutton mentioned the significance of this book in his recent talk on real presence at the ICCA, which I also highly recommend.

                       

"Reformation Christians" and Anglicans

Piggybacking on this and this.

William Witt avers in the first discussion linked above,

The long and short of it is, I am highly in favor of ecumenism (with Rome and Orthodoxy). At the same time, I think that the only proper way for ecumenical relations to move forward is that those of us who are Reformation Christians need to recognize that there are reasons that we are not Roman Catholics or Orthodox, and that progress can only take place if ecumenical discussion is a two-way street.

Something else struck me this afternoon about Witt's use of the term "Reformation Christians" with reference to his pro-WO party.  Not only have I pointed out something of the irony of Witt & Company's claim to be "Reformation Christians", since all of the Reformers, English and Continental alike, would have viewed their innovation with horror and contempt, but Witt & Company's "Reformation Christian" theological methodology is wholly unAnglican.  Let me explain.

As almost any Anglican theologian or church historian worth his salt would tell you, the English Reformation was unlike the Continental Reformation both in terms of its conservatism and its stated appeal to the Church Fathers.  It was this very thing that was responsible for stopping the Calvinist trajectory in its tracks under Elizabeth.  The Calvinist trajectory being thus supplanted, Anglican divinity embarked on another trajectory which sought to flesh out what the English Reformers claimed about their ressourcement project.  Anglicanism took a decidedly Catholic turn under Elizabeth, and then Hooker.  The Caroline divines became the bridge between Hooker and the Tractarians, Old High Church complaints about the latter notwithstanding. 

As for the "Continuing Reformation Christians" in the Church of England and her offspring, well, they went in two directions.  One party became fellow travelers with the "Reformation Christians" on the Continent who morphed into to radical liberal Protestantism.  The other party became fellow travelers with the "Reformation Christians" on the Continent (and Scotland)  who morphed into radical conservative Protestantism. 

The kind of "Reformation Christian" with which Dr. Witt and his gang associate themselves seems to be a hybrid of the two.   On the one hand we see this commitment to egalitarianism and feminism that find roots in the radical liberal party, but we see as well a commitment to the radical conservative party that takes the sola scriptura and semper reformanda principles to the nth degree.  It's a real witches brew, one that is bubbling in "Evangelical" circles outside of Realignment Anglican ranks. Think of any number of today's Evangelical spokesmen (and, more importantly, its spokeswomen).

Classical Anglicanism, which sought to establish its place in the Great Tradition, has no place for this kind of "Reformation Christianity."  It took a completely different tack.  We will either affirm it, and behave accordingly, or we'll become something else.  Unless they humbly change their minds, Witt & Company have no part in Classical Anglicanism.  In that event, I guess we'll have to let them be "Reformation Christians."

Psalter Reading from Tonight's Office (8/20)

Psalm 104, chanted to a wonderful setting by the Bramdean School Chapel Choir.

Is Women's Ordination a "Heresy"?

As I stated here?

Dr. Witt and a person commenting on this question tonight are dismissive of my claim.  Per Witt:

As for accusations of “heresy,” yawn. I think it would take some real effort to make a theological case that advocacy of women’s ordination is not simply mistaken, but “heretical.” “Heresy” has to do with a position that is not only theologically mistaken, but touches on the center of Christian faith in such a manner as to distort the central “subject matter” of Christian faith. So Arianism is a “heresy” because (as Athanasius argued), only God can save, and, if Christ is not divine, but only a creature, then he cannot save us.

I don’t see how one could reasonably argue that “male only” clergy is essential to the heart of Christian faith in the same way that Nicene and Chalcedonian orthodoxy are at the heart of Christian faith. Disagreement about this issue is more along the lines of other disagreements between Christians, that while, important are, to some extent, adiaphora. As an Anglican, I disagree with Roman Catholics about transubstantiation, with Lutherans about ubiquity, and with Presbyterians about polity. I don’t think that their views are “heretical.”

Just so it's clear, I do understand the distinction between orthodoxy and orthodopraxis.  The ordination of women to the priesthood is an act (praxis), not a belief, so in the technical, ecclesially declarative sense it is not a "heresy."  However, I maintain that the practice of women's ordination is still "heretical", and this for two reasons:

1) The definition of αἵρεσις reads as follows: "a self-chosen opinion, a religious or philosophical sect, discord or contention." The belief in some dioceses of the ACNA that women may be ordained to the priesthood, and for some folks in the ACNA, the episcopate, most certainly represents a "self-chosen opinion" held against the consensus not only of the Church Fathers, but of the Reformers (which essentially undoes Witt's assertion that defenders of WO in the ACNA are "Reformation Christians").  It most certainly reflects as well the existence of a "religious sect" that promulgates its "self-chosen opinion" in the face of the belief of the vast majority of the world's orthodox Christians.  And it most certainly has introduced "discord and contention" into Anglican ranks;

2) The practice is likewise heretical because of the heretical beliefs on which the practice is based.  As many opponents of WO have argued, it is possible to discern in various arguments made for the practice, alternatively or together, gnosticism, aberrant triadology, aberrant christology, and an aberrant view of the creation order.

So, Dr. Witt and CarterS, that's our story and we're sticking to it.

If it were possible in our lifetimes to see the Great Schism healed and a great council of the Roman and Orthodox Churches convened to address the issues of the day, I am quite confident that one of those issues would be women's ordination, and that the practice would be anathematized precisely for the two reasons I've set forth above.  That is, if Rome's and Orthodoxy's current ruminations on what they view as the heresies underlying the practice of WO are any indication.  In that hypothetical Witt would certainly be compelled to revise his argument.

But it's a far-fetched hypothetical, so let's return to the issue of how WO is "heretical" here in the current ecclesial situation.  A heresy does not necessarity need to be ecclesially defined as such for it to be a heresy.  Before a controversy over a perceived departure from orthodox doctrine ever gets raised to conciliar consideration and judgment, the claim that it's a heresy must first be made, somewhere, by someone, after which a controversy ensues.  This is where we are right now.  The acceptance of WO in Anglican ranks is only a few decades old.  Even the ACNA says it's currently in a process of "reception."  The issue is not ripe for ecclesial assessment and judgment, though it seems clear that one day it will be.  Until then, the debate goes on.  Here are a dew examples of others who also call WO a "heresy".  (You'll have to slog through the articles to see where the accusations of "heresy" are made.):

Roman Catholic

Heresy and the Priestly Ordination of Women

Anglican Ordination of Women Bishops Ends Reunion Prospects

Orthodox

Thoughts on Women's Ordination

Anglican

Priestesses in Plano (Rearding a position paper issued by Christ Church in Plano, TX (AMiA), which apparently became the basis of an ordination that took place there several months later.)

"Nobody gives a ...": A good reason why we are Continuing Anglicans

However, as I read Witt's comments tonight, it's pretty clear that none of this matters to him or other such "Reformation Christians."  I suppose that's his way of saying "Nobody gives a . . .".   But then again, that has been the attitude of heretics - the holders of a self-chosen opinion over against the Church -- from time immemorial.

Loving Lynda

A bit of a diversion from the standard fare to bring you this important advertisement.  If you get a chance, see this movie when it's released.   The Walters are longtime family friends, especially on my wife's side.  I took some of my first theology courses from Jim at John Brown University in Siloam Springs, Arkansas.  Jim married us in 1977 and buried my mom in 2007.  Lynda hosted my wife's wedding shower and was present at both our marriage and my mom's funeral.  One of Jim and Lynda's sons is an Anglican priest.

Lynda went to be with the Beloved in 2012.  She spent many long years suffering from MS before she died, and I saw some of that up close and personal when we would visit family in Arkansas.   Words would fail if I tried to convey, according to my limited perception, anything about how Jim and Lynda suffered but also how great God's grace was through it. That's why you need to see this movie -- and have it shown at your church.

Thief or Messenger?

You'll have to watch the whole video to find out why the question.  The prior's words here are of interest to me as someone who deals with terminal illness and death quite frequently.  I also appreciate the emphasis on music and beer, however.  Looks like this monastery and St. Matthew's Anglican Catholic Church in Newport Beach have roughly the same idea about evangelization.  I LIKE it. ;>)

The Sweetness of God's Grace According to Bernard of Clairvaux - The Bridge Between Augustine and Luther

I have argued in this blog that an Augustinian view of grace, though a minority view, is nevertheless a valid theologoumenon (i.e., a non-heretical dogmatic opinion) for a Catholic Christian to hold, and by "Catholic" here I mean decidedly non-Protestant.  Bernard of Clairvaux is an example of a Catholic theologian, monk and saint who held a view of grace not substantially different from that of Luther.  Linked below is an article in demonstration.

I am currently toying with the proposition that as long as we can appeal to Catholic theologians, monks and saints such as the Augustinian Cistercian Bernard of Clairvaux, we need not claim to be Protestant at all, and that as Anglicans all that is necessary to solve our identity crisis is to identify as Western Catholic Chrisitans.  I know it can be argued that it's more complicated than that, so if someone would like to try to talk me out of that conclusion, I'm all ears.

On a related note, I have been interested in Benedictine spirituality for quite some time, and in Bernard I am finding, for a number of reasons, one Benedictine monk (besides Benedict himself) to whom I can strongly relate. 

The Sweetness of God's Grace According to Bernard of Clairvaux - The Bridge Between Augustine and Luther.

William Witt on Women's Ordination: "Concerning the Ordination of Women: Preliminaries"

8/18 Update:  Dr. Witt has been quick to reply.  I will, however, likely forgo responding to whatever replies he posts to my series of rebuttals until I completely make my way through his articles, and that will be awhile.  In the meantime, get your popcorn, sit back, and enjoy the show!

8/19 Update:  Matt Colvin comments.

_______________________________________________________________________

As noted in the blog entry below, this is the first in a series of replies to the articles William Witt has posted at his blog in defense of the practice of ordaining women to the Anglican priesthood.  This blog post is in reply to the first of Witt's articles, entitled Concerning the Ordination of Women: Preliminaries, dated September 9, 2013.

As you can discern from the title of Witt's article, its intent is to set forth some preliminaries.  Commendably, Dr. Witt lays out for all to see some of the biases with which he begins this series of articles.  In fact, he is so commendably straightforward that he just about gives up the store.  Let's take a look.

He begins by stating his credentials as a defender of orthodox Anglicanism in the vein of C.S. Lewis:

Most of what I write, I hope to be in the flavor of what C.S. Lewis called “mere Christianity.” I prefer to be an apologist for Evangelical Catholic theology from an Anglican perspective. Theologically, my approach tends to be ecumenical, looking for areas of agreement and consensus among orthodox Christians. On the occasions where I have ventured into polemics, it has been in response to the challenges of those who reject this perspective. So I have consistently written against liberal Protestantism, which I think is the great heresy in the church today. I have engaged in argument against those who have challenged the catholicity of Anglicanism on such questions as the development of doctrine.

With that statement of his essential orthodoxy being made, he begins a discussion about the exception to orthodox Anglicanism that he will carve out and defend:

But there are some issues on which I have not written precisely because I have preferred to avoid the kinds of heated polemics that these issues raise. I have not yet written on Christianity and politics. I have not written on women’s ordination.

However, in recent years, a number of people have asked me to write something on women’s ordination, either because they wondered what my position was, or because they knew my position and wanted me to put it in writing. I do endorse the ordination of women, and it is a position endorsed by numerous orthodox Christians. T. F. Torrance, Ben Witherington, N.T. Wright, Richard Hays, Michael Gorman, Robert Gagnon, and Alan Padgett are just some of the male orthodox biblical scholars and theologians who have written in favor of gender equality or women’s ordination or both. The number of orthodox Christians endorsing women’s ordination is not a small or insignificant group. Unfortunately, for whatever reasons, they are not as vocal as those opposed to women’s ordination, and, especially among orthodox Anglicans lately, the loudness at least of those opposed to women’s ordination has reached such a crescendo (at least in public discussion) that one might get the impression that this was a decided issue.

Now, it's of course fallacious to argue or even imply that because a number of noted "orthodox Christians" defend women's ordination ("WO" going forward) that Witt therefore stands in good company.  It may be the fact that each and every one of these ostensibly orthodox Christians happens to be heretical on this particular issue, and defenders of the traditional view believe that they are in fact so, their commendable orthodoxy on all the other issues notwithstanding.  Also fallacious is the argument that "the number of orthodox Christians endorsing WO is not a small or insignificant group."  Size doesn't matter in this discussion.  What matters is whether or not WO is an unbiblical and uncatholic innovation.

Next,

I have also known a number of orthodox ordained women clergy who are my friends, and whom I greatly admire, and, at the seminary where I teach I have been privileged to have as students women who were among the best students, finest preachers, and some of the most promising theologians of any of my students. I think it would be a great tragedy for the church to deny these women the opportunity to use their gifts and pursue their callings, but, even more,  to be served by them. I am writing this series of posts primarily for these women.

So we see here something of the emotional motivation for Witt's series of articles.  He has close female friends who have been ordained to the priesthood and valued female students who are headed there.  I again want to commend Dr. Witt for his honesty, because there's a lot of emotional fuel here at work in his thinking and writing.  Enough emotional fuel, in fact, to create a very bad argument.  As I will attempt to show in subsequent responses, this is in fact what happened in Witt's series of articles. But Witt also begs an essential question when he refers to these women's "calling" to the priesthood, for the very question to the apostolic and catholic Christian is whether such a "calling" can even exist.

Dr. Witt continues,

Where I Stand

First things first. I am strongly in favor of the ordination of women, and have been since I was in my twenties. I was raised in a church that did not approve of the ordination of women, and still does not. I left that church for a number of reasons and became an Anglican. The journey from free church Evangelical to sacramental Anglicanism was a long story that took a number of years. My path to Anglicanism and my path to the approval of women’s ordination was the same path, and the theological arguments that led me to the one were of the same kind of arguments that led me to the other. I have never been attracted to theological liberalism, and my reasons for becoming an Anglican had nothing to do with the liberalism of the Episcopal Church. Indeed, I became an Episcopalian because the Episcopal Church was the American representative of Anglicanism. Because the Episcopal Church embraced liberal Protestantism as its official theology at General Convention 2004, I am no longer an Episcopalian, but I am still an Anglican.

Here we get a glimpse into the long-standing nature of Witt's emotional attachment to the proposition that women may be ordained to the Anglican priesthood.  He confesses that he rejected the traditional view of ordination he encountered of his free church past, and that this was one of the reasons he was attracted to Anglicanism -- at that time represented in North America by The Episcopal Church.  Now that Dr. Witt has found himself in something of a pickle on WO due to the move of Realignment Anglicans out of TEC, he finds it necessary to defend his long-standing emotional commitment to the practice against all those Realignment Anglicans who argue for the traditional view -- and who argue that WO was clearly an unbiblical and uncatholic manifestation of the liberalism Witt decries.  (He will go on to argue later in his series that WO and theological liberalism can be delinked.)

Witt then turns his attention to the three basic arguments against WO:

Three Different Kinds of Arguments Against Women’s Ordination

There are basically three different kinds of argument against women’s ordination. The first kinds of arguments are non-theological pragmatic arguments. For example, WO is part of a secular agenda. WO was introduced into the church by liberals. WO will lead the church to liberalism. There is no difference between ordaining women and ordaining practicing gays. These arguments are characterized by their lack of properly theological substance.

More properly theological arguments tend to fall into two different kinds as there are basically two different kinds of traditions that do not ordain women: Protestant arguments and Catholic arguments. By “Protestant,” I mean Christian traditions that have their roots in the Reformation, affirm sola scriptura, do not allow much authority to church tradition or councils, with the exception perhaps of Saint Augustine, and the Reformers, and tend to have a low (if not Zwinglian) view of the sacraments. Some in Reformation churches (such as Anglicans and Lutherans), would not necessarily fall into this category (but there are Anglicans and Lutherans that would). By “Catholic,” I mean Christian traditions that, while affirming the significance of Scripture, also place a high value on church tradition, and have a high view of the sacraments. Churches that fall into this category would include not only Roman Catholics, but also the Orthodox, and some (but not all) Anglicans and Lutherans.

Protestants and Catholics (in the specific sense in which I am using the terms) understand the purpose of ordination differently, and consequently use different theological arguments against women’s ordination.

Witt's assessment at this point is more or less correct, although I would argue that there really isn't such a neat and clean distinction between "Protestant" and "Catholic" arguments as he seems to suggest.  While it's true that Evangelical opponents of WO tend not to argue along liturgiological, ecclesiological and other theological lines as Catholics do, it isn't true that Catholic defenders of the traditional view tend to shun the biblical argument for male headship in home and church.  Manfred Hauke's magisterial work on the question, Women in the Priesthood: A Systematic Analysis in the Light of the Order of Creation and Redemption, is a prime example of a Catholic scholar who engages the issue exegetically.  Conversely, an Evangelical work recently published, One God in Three Persons: Unity of Essence, Distinction of Persons, Implications for Life (Ware and Starke, eds.), is largely focused on a triadological defense of the traditional view.  In fact, Catholic and Evangelical defenders of the traditional view are "finding each other", and any Anglican defense of the traditional view will rely heavily on this body of scholarship.

After further detailing the differences between the "Protestant" and "Catholic" approaches, Witt continues with what he believes is another key issue at the heart of the matter,

The Hermeneutical and Theological Difference

It is also important to note that there is a crucial difference between scripture and tradition on the one hand, and hermeneutics on the other. Exegesis and tradition have to do with the difference between understanding what the writers of Scripture taught, and what was taught in the traditions of the church, and how we address the same issues today in a different ecclesial and cultural setting. It is the difference between “what did it mean?” and “what does it mean?,” between what Scripture and tradition said then, and how we apply it today. Too many opponents of WO think that the question can be resolved by a simple appeal to Scripture or tradition. Protestants will appeal to Paul’s prohibitions against women speaking in church or having authority over men. Catholics will appeal to the church’s tradition of ordaining men, and assume that this settles the question. But the question needs to be addressed theologically. Biblical or historical precedent alone is not a theological argument without addressing the theological reasons behind the precedent.

While Witt's previous argument was very straightforward, here he becomes quite obscure.  He seems to suggest that when a modern cultural context requires a different interpretation of "scripture and tradition"  (that is, with respect to WO) than what an ancient interpretation required, this is somehow a "hermeneutical" issue, which he seems to confuse with the "theological" issue.  True, hermeneutics does include the endeavor to understand cultural context in the goal to find modern application, "cultural" arguments aren't necessarily hermeneutical ones.  Both the "Protestant" opponents of WO whose emphasis is on the exegetical approach and "Catholics" who emphasize the theological approach understand well the role that understanding of 1st-century culture plays in conservative hermeneutics, but they would argue that the pertinent biblical material in this case is not culturally conditioned, say, as Paul's comments on slavery would be.  Surely Witt understands that liberal Episcopalians would argue that the Bible's proscription of homosexual behavior is just as much "culturally conditioned" as is its proscription of WO, and thus because of such a "hermeneutical" consideration 1st-century religious culture must give way to 21st-century secular culture.  So, it would seem Witt's argument proves too much.   If neo-Anglicans can undo 2,000 years of tradition with respect to WO on the basis of "hermeneutics", liberal Anglicans can do the same with respect to homosexual behavior.  He can't have it both ways.

Witt ends this first essay as follows:

One last point. Some topics are, by their nature, polemical. Discussions of politics and women’s ordination inevitably raise hackles. That’s just the way it is. It is not my intention to offend, but some will no doubt take offense at what I write. I wish anger and hurt feelings could be avoided, but this is not a reason not to say things that I think need to be said.

So much for preliminaries. Future posts will consider individual arguments.

Which drew this comment from one Sheri Graham:

Thank you for tackling this issue. I look forward to reading your thoughts and theological reasons for your position. I appreciate your being willing to face the no doubt heated discussion that will arise.

We are compelled to answer Dr. Witt, yes, he has chosen to defend a position that will "raise hackles" and will "no doubt" cause offense.  We only hope he will indeed "be willing to face the no doubt heated discussion that will arise."  He's made it clear that he will not rise to the occasion of facing his critics on his Facebook page, and that is fair enough, for many people don't want their Facebook page to be a forum for theological debates.  But here in the blogosphere and in various and sundry Realignment and Continuing Anglican fora dedicated to the debate of issues that affect orthodox Anglicanism, his arguments will indeed be subjected to scrutiny, not only by insignificant bloggers like me, but by accomplished scholars, Anglican and non-Anglican alike, and of course by our bishops.  

Witt's is an argument that is, by his own admission, rooted in an emotional attachment to a notion that close female colleagues and treasured female students have been "called" into the priesthood.  His starting point is therefore doubly problematic: 1) emotion should not come to bear in arguments such as these, and 2) the notion that these women have been "called" into the priesthood is begging the essential question, especially when we look at the collective and historical way the Catholic Church has approached this issue of "calling."  The Catholic Church -- a branch of which Anglicanism has long claimed itself to be --  recognizes no such "call".   Such "calls" originated in Anglican churches only recently, tellingly rooted in an era of various egalitarian, liberationist and feminist ideologies.  But Witt's attachment to them lies at the heart of his argument in favor of this unapostolic and uncatholic innovation.

My next reply, whenever it comes, will be to Witt's second essay in favor of WO, Non-theological Arguments Against the Ordination of Women.

Henry Purcell, Funeral Sentences (Vox Luminis)

Important News Tonight in North American Realignment Anglicanism

I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.

UPDATE:  Never mind.  It's public. 

This is a good thing.  Glad to see it.

The Holy Ghost Hokey Pokey

I recently tried several times, in vain,  to get a noted "Anglican Pentecostal" clergyman to comment on this video.  I hope his silence doesn't mean what I think it may mean.

Fathers and Anglicans: The Limits of Orthodoxy

I highly recommend this book for one of the most reasonable approaches I have read to date on solving the vexing problem of Anglican identity.  (See my post here about Middleton's address to the recent International Catholic Congress of Anglicans.)  I will take the lazy man's way of answering why I believe it's such an important book by quoting the review at Amazon by Fr. Charles Erlandson, pointing specifically to his comments about Middelton's take on the English Reformation:

Anyone who has been following the fate and fortunes of Anglicanism in recent years knows that Anglicanism, like much of the Church, is in a profound crisis. This crisis is largely an identity crisis: Anglicans don't know who they are anymore. In "Fathers and Anglicans," Canon Arthur Middleton, Emeritus Canon of Durham (and who served the Church of England in many other official capacities), provides some clarity on Anglican identity.

As a point of reference, I'm a priest in the Reformed Episcopal Church who has his Ph.D. in Religious Studies from Lancaster University. The topic of my Ph.D. dissertation was the identity of Anglicanism. I had a chance in 2006 to meet and talk with Canon Middleton in Durham, at which time we discussed some of the ideas expressed in this book. I discovered that Canon Middleton is very knowledgeable and passionate about the topic of this book.

Richard Chartres, Bishop of London, writes in the Foreward to "Fathers and Anglicans" that "Anglican self-understanding and self-respect is at a low ebb." One of the antidotes to the identity crisis that Anglicanism is now experiencing is for Anglicans to renew their understanding of the "patristic mind." In "Fathers and Anglicans," therefore, Middleton argues that the way forward for Anglicans is the re-capture the fundamental synthesis of perspective that characterized the ancient, undivided Church. For Middleton, the way to accomplish this is to return to the Church Fathers and seek the patristic mind. Throughout, he argues that in Anglicanism Protestantism is, ultimately, a quest for catholicity.

Middleton's thesis is presented largely in a chronological way, and a list of the sections and chapters will help the reader get the big picture of what Middleton is hoping to achieve.

Part One: Fathers And Reformers
1. An Ecclesiastical Mind
2. Fathers and Reform in John Jewel and Thomas Cranmer
3. Fathers and Formularies
4. The Patristic Spirit of Reform

Part Two: Fathers and Carolines
5. Successors and Builders
6. Richard Hooker and the Puritans
7. Lancelot Andrewes and the Roman Catholics
8. William Laud and the Calvinists
9. The Laudians and Henry Hammond
10. Literature and Laudians

Part Three: Objections and Responses
11. Direct Objections and Responses
12. Indirect Objections and Responses

Part Four: Rediscovering the Fathers
13. Fathers and Tractarians
14. Redeeming the Present

Since the period of the English Reformation is particularly important for understanding Anglican identity, including contemporary Anglican identity, and since an understanding of the theology and mind of the Reformers is often a contested thing, Middleton's discussion of the patristic argument in the Reformers is especially critical. For Cranmer and Jewel (the two English Reformers Middleton deals with), "Scripture is the supreme standard of faith, but the Fathers represent the tradition of the Church by which Scripture has been interpreted correctly." This is possibly the most important sentence in the entire book, and it lies at the heart of Middleton's thesis.

Middleton continues his argument by demonstrating the essentially patristic character of the Church of England's Formularies, including The Canons of 1571 and 1603, The Thirty-nine Articles, the Book of Homilies, and the Book of Common Prayer. He sustains his argument with great consistency in the remainder of his historical presentation so that the reader is left with the definite impression of the abiding importance of the Church Fathers to Anglican thought.

In the final chapter, Middleton applies his historical thesis on the Anglican understanding of the Fathers as normative interpreters of Scripture and the Christian faith to the present. He finds a return to the patristic mind an antidote to what he calls "the cult of the new" and argues for "renovation" over "innovation."

While Middleton's argument may at times leave out Anglican voices that haven't made such direct appeals to the Church Fathers, "Fathers and Anglicans" clearly illustrates the importance of the Fathers to an Anglican interpretation of Scripture, as well as to Anglican self-understanding. While his is a minority voice, it is a critical one that deserves to be heard if Anglicanism is to re-discover its identity and renew its life as a vital Christian tradition.

I also recommend Middleton's much briefer book, "Restoring the Anglican Mind," in which he argues many of the same points without the wealth of historical evidence (for those for whom this may not be desirable) but with what is in some ways a clearer focus.

Collect for the Tenth Sunday After Trinity

With Mudd’s beautiful setting below:

Let thy merciful ears, O Lord, be open to the prayers of thy humble servants; and, that they may obtain their petitions, make them to ask such things as shall please thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

REC Bishop Ray Sutton's Presentation on "Real Presence" at the International Catholic Congress of Anglicans

ACC Archbishop Mark Haverland's Address to the International Catholic Congress of Anglicans

Some months ago I speculated about what His Grace's attendence at this very signficant event might augur.  I'm not sure I have a much clearer picture of that, but one thing seems certain: Anglo-Catholics in the ACNA and the Anglican Continuum are talking seriously to each other about what the future MUST hold if orthodox Anglicanism is to survive, and women's ordination figured prominently at the recent gathering.   Here is the text of Haverland's address to the ICCA.  I've been somewhat critical of Haverland in these pages, but I must confess that I increasingly understand where he's coming from, and I sympathize with it to a very significant degree.   Haverland's address was hard-hitting, but as usual eloquent and compelling.

St. Jerome the Irascible

I have always liked St. Jerome, both for the fact that he was one of the Catholic Church's first biblical scholars, but equally for the fact that he "was by nature irascible and impulsive" in his defense of the truth.  I can relate to him and to all the known irascible saints, as I am the same way.  God knows I have striven to temper my irascibility, but He knows as well that sometimes my anger does get away from me nevertheless.  However, I am not entirely convinced that irascibility, sarcasm and the like are never called for, especially in people of profound conviction and passion, such as SS. Paul, Jerome, and many notable others.