An illustration of the troubles traditionalists get themselves into by emphasizing doctrinal purity

At TitusOneNine, I read that Robert Duncan has, unusually, has said something with which many moderate- and liberal Episcopalians can agree 100%:

“For those who believe the ordination of women to be a grave error, and for those who believe it scripturally justifiable . . . we should be in mission together until God sorts us out,” said Duncan in last week’s opening address. “It is not perfect, but it is enough.” [Emphasis added.]

Duncan was formerly the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh; he is now being styled “archbishop” by the new church calling itself the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA).

Duncan was referring specifically to the controversy in his new church over women’s ordination to the priesthood, which some traditionalists steadfastly oppose. In my comment at T19, I said in effect that it was a pity Duncan wouldn’t apply the same standard of mutual tolerance to certain other hotly-contested issues. 

Right on cue (or so it seemed), subsequent commenters promptly provided yet another example of how doctrinal purity so often pushes itself to the forefront of any religious discussion involving traditionalists:

• One commenter, "InChristAlone," wrote that I was failing to distinguish between 'central' issues (presumably including, say, same-sex marriage) and less-important ones like women's ordination:

D.C., you are trying to compare apples and oranges. Women’s ordination is not a central Gospel issue, even those who disagree with W.O. don’t believe that it is, even though it is still an important issue. … [Emphasis added.]

• And then — totally unsurprisingly — another commenter, "stjohnsrector," jumped in to argue just the opposite, namely that women's ordination was indeed a 'central' issue in the church:

I hate to open this can of worms, but many of us Anglicans, and the churches in communion with Rome and Constantinople, believe it is a central issue. …

• A few comments later, "austin" elaborated on why women's ordination was, yes, a central issue:

The ordination of women, for catholics, is of the first order not only because valid sacraments are “generally necessary for salvation,” but also for reasons of authority, tradition, the order of nature, and the reliability of Scripture (in ascending order of importance, perhaps)....

The issue is not going to go away, and it is, in my view, likely to be fatal to the new enterprise if not definitively settled.

[Emphasis added.] 

As it happened, ACNA prudently adopted to a local-option arrangement on the subject of women’s ordination. I stand by my original comment:  What a pity they couldn’t live with the same approach concerning same-sex marriages while they were still in the Episcopal Church. There was no reason we couldn't agree to disagree, and then get back to work, together, to bring more people to God.

Comments

[Don Warrington]

I wouldn't classify this as much of a strictly "doctrinal" difference as much as a difference of view of the nature of the church.

The core objectors to WO are Anglo-Catholics, who derive (not well or consciously) their view from Roman Catholicism. The latter posit that their institution is an active dispenser of grace and a formal intermediary between man and God. (BTW, when living out your way, that wasn't always clear to me in the RCC, either.) The priest, thus, is a substantive representative of Christ himself, and thus must be male.

I don't think this view of church is Biblical, but if one points this out the reaction is hostile.

Evangelicals and Protestants usually resort to the "headship" issue, but sooner or later one runs into this:

http://www.vulcanhammer.org/2007/12/07/authority-and-evangelical-churches/

The key to understanding WO for me was unlocked by Lord Carey, who noted the prophetic gift given to women on the day of Pentecost. But this takes the Anglican/Episcopal world (in this country at least) into places is doesn't want to go.

As far as your parting comment of "get back to work, together, to bring more people to God," let me assure you that, if I came to your idea as expressed here and on T19, bringing people to God would vanish from my to do list, never to return.

[D. C. Toedt]

Don, I'm not sure I get your last sentence. It looks like you're expressing disagreement with some of the views I've expressed; am I reading you rightly?

[Don Warrington]

It goes beyond that. Disagreement certainly, but what I'm saying is that, if I did agree with you, I'd take an entirely different course of action in life.

[D. C. Toedt]

Don, would you mind elaborating? (I'm not taking offense by any means; it's just that you've piqued my curiosity.)

[Don Warrington]

I think that part of the answer is here, even though it's not directly addressed to you:

http://www.vulcanhammer.org/2009/06/23/when-church-becomes-pointless/

[D. C. Toedt]

Don, thanks for the link.

The linked article talks about John Shelby Spong. I'm not a big Spong fan; I appreciate his willingness to challenge received dogmas, but he himself is more than a bit too dogmatic for my taste.

If I understand you correctly, I tend to agree with you to this extent: If our individual lives really did have no significance in the greater scheme of things, it'd be hard to come up with reasons to go to church (let alone to try to convince others to do so), or to do anything other than what seems pleasant at the time.

Where we may be talking past each other is that I do think our lives have significance in the greater scheme of things. For more on this, please see the posts linked at right under the heading "Building a universe."

[Don Warrington]

Your series "Building a Universe" (which you are in fact building) has some interesting idea, especially for an Old Earth Creationist like myself. The tricky part comes, however, when you take that and take it to the next level, or, as you put it, "get back to work, together, to bring more people to God."

Let me offer some examples.

Two years ago, I had a summer long email debate with a Salafi Muslim in Indonesia. He, like myself, is an engineer, and so the relationship between religion and science is of interest to the both of us. He presented extensive literature and data to show some of the things you do and how science is related to Islam. But his idea of coming to God (and what needs to happen thereafter) is entirely different than either one of ours.

My Masonic ancestors (who were also frequently Episcopalians) saw the work of the creator in the universe. But their idea of approaching God--and certainly their concept of God--was different as well.

My point is that it's one thing to see the existence of the Creator through the workings of the universe. To take the next step and bring people into some kind of relationship with God--either individually or, as your PB has mandated now, collectivistic--and the nature of that relationship is another matter altogether.