At the end of the day, you cannot serve two masters. If I am understanding your proposal correctly, I believe the split needs to be total and complete, not two entities yoked by an administrative organization. Both can claim to be Christian [as long as they remain so] and both can claim to be Anglican, but if they are administratively and financially yoked, there inevitably will trouble down the road I believe.
One issue is that most of the large dioceses are pro WO. So the size and strength of the two provinces would be skewed to Province W. Also I am a clergyman in a diocese that ordains female priests yet support ordination of women as deacons only. How does the two province scheme help me?
On TEC's side, I've got to imagine that their own conservative contingent is a thorn in their side that they'd like to get rid of. Ironically, our own women priests in the ACNA, provided that they're otherwise theologically conservative, may be an influential voice in TEC if they were made to cross the fence. Though I recognize that's getting into an area too hypothetical for meaningful speculation.
Unironically, some could say that this is just a cosmetic change, but it does raise interesting questions as to what it means for women not to exercise authority over men. Even in the Roman Church the pope has appointed women to sit in committees vetting episcopal candidates. In many churches which rejects women ordination, women still sit on financial committees and all kinds of decision making committees which, concretely, does exercise authority over men.
In the end, I think that the present ACNA arrangement, that the buck stops at a male episcopal head, seems like a reasonable arrangement, so in a sense, ultimately it is still a men exercising authority over women. But for the sake of appearances, if we are not going to touch the pandora's box of examining the power structures of *actual decision making* in a church corporation, we could just have a change in office for women pastors/priests into prophetesses, under male episcopal headship, while glossing over the substantive question of actual power structures.
I traveled through southern Utah when I moved from CA to South Dakota, and was moved to awe of the Creator of heaven and earth. Another challenge to a 2 Province model will be both Provinces having congrgations in geographical proximity, essentially "competing."
I don’t see how this provides any advantage over each diocese continuing to decide on WO. If the Province could remain neutral, friction might lessen. However, the question of impaired communion remains.
I think splitting into two completely independent provinces could be the best solution. After that is done, then we could, together with all other Anglican groups, discuss whether electing a primate/ecumenical patriarch for all Anglicans in North America makes sense.
I don't pretend to have better ideas or a fully worked-out idea of my own as to how this is to be resolved, but I've never been a fan of "dual integrities". What we have are irreconcilable integrities. One side must go over to the other. The natural problem is in actually getting the other side to concede to what we percieve as the "plain words of Scripture". For my part, I see an elegant solution that resolves more than just our own issues: ACNA clergy and laity in favor of women's ordination can simply make the shift over to the Episcopal Church, and those conservative holdouts in TEC can come to us. You get my quarterback, I get your (insert football position here; I don't watch sports).
Speaking for the trad young men, I would see anything other than a full rejection of WO (including to the diaconate) as a waste of time.
I don’t think there’s much appetite in the ACNA for that.
Many of the baby boomers in the ACNA who see themselves as conservatives allow women to read lessons, the prayers of the people, serve the chalice, etc; all things that have no precedent in the practice of the church catholic before the 20th century.
If the proposed conservative jurisdiction looks like the conservative half of the ACNA, there’s really no point.
I wonder what Jesus would think about "good fences make good neighbors". Perhaps Paul would approve, hard to say since he wrote so much about unity in the church centere in "the mind of Christ".
Your comments seemingly linking WO to other issues like "social justice" (I read "wokeness") is a tactic I've seen used over and over again and is pretty much a "cheap shot" meant to draw attention from serious, thoughtful differences in what the full witness of Scripture reveals about women in leadership in the church. There are many people who support WO (some of whom are respected biblical scholars, and many of whom are women) who do not prescribe to "progressive" social and ecclesiatical positions. I have no opinion about your two province proposal (I'm not a part of ACNA and have no place to comment on that matter). But some of the assertions in your preamble are worth deeper reflection.
At the end of the day, you cannot serve two masters. If I am understanding your proposal correctly, I believe the split needs to be total and complete, not two entities yoked by an administrative organization. Both can claim to be Christian [as long as they remain so] and both can claim to be Anglican, but if they are administratively and financially yoked, there inevitably will trouble down the road I believe.
I hear you. But most in ACNA do not want a total split.
One issue is that most of the large dioceses are pro WO. So the size and strength of the two provinces would be skewed to Province W. Also I am a clergyman in a diocese that ordains female priests yet support ordination of women as deacons only. How does the two province scheme help me?
Thankful you had safe travels. Your proposal is sound. We definitely must keep the pro-life activities.
In the words of Palpatine, ironic.
On TEC's side, I've got to imagine that their own conservative contingent is a thorn in their side that they'd like to get rid of. Ironically, our own women priests in the ACNA, provided that they're otherwise theologically conservative, may be an influential voice in TEC if they were made to cross the fence. Though I recognize that's getting into an area too hypothetical for meaningful speculation.
Could it be possible to just convert all women priests and pastors into "prophetesses" and they just continue doing what they are doing?
Unironically, some could say that this is just a cosmetic change, but it does raise interesting questions as to what it means for women not to exercise authority over men. Even in the Roman Church the pope has appointed women to sit in committees vetting episcopal candidates. In many churches which rejects women ordination, women still sit on financial committees and all kinds of decision making committees which, concretely, does exercise authority over men.
In the end, I think that the present ACNA arrangement, that the buck stops at a male episcopal head, seems like a reasonable arrangement, so in a sense, ultimately it is still a men exercising authority over women. But for the sake of appearances, if we are not going to touch the pandora's box of examining the power structures of *actual decision making* in a church corporation, we could just have a change in office for women pastors/priests into prophetesses, under male episcopal headship, while glossing over the substantive question of actual power structures.
I traveled through southern Utah when I moved from CA to South Dakota, and was moved to awe of the Creator of heaven and earth. Another challenge to a 2 Province model will be both Provinces having congrgations in geographical proximity, essentially "competing."
Well, that happens now between dioceses already.
Yep. Even here in Sioux Falls.
I don’t see how this provides any advantage over each diocese continuing to decide on WO. If the Province could remain neutral, friction might lessen. However, the question of impaired communion remains.
I think splitting into two completely independent provinces could be the best solution. After that is done, then we could, together with all other Anglican groups, discuss whether electing a primate/ecumenical patriarch for all Anglicans in North America makes sense.
Yeah. Maybe an actual split then partnering in areas of agreement would be a cleaner way to go.
I don't pretend to have better ideas or a fully worked-out idea of my own as to how this is to be resolved, but I've never been a fan of "dual integrities". What we have are irreconcilable integrities. One side must go over to the other. The natural problem is in actually getting the other side to concede to what we percieve as the "plain words of Scripture". For my part, I see an elegant solution that resolves more than just our own issues: ACNA clergy and laity in favor of women's ordination can simply make the shift over to the Episcopal Church, and those conservative holdouts in TEC can come to us. You get my quarterback, I get your (insert football position here; I don't watch sports).
To be fair, TEC is too lib for many pro-WO people in ACNA.
Speaking for the trad young men, I would see anything other than a full rejection of WO (including to the diaconate) as a waste of time.
I don’t think there’s much appetite in the ACNA for that.
Many of the baby boomers in the ACNA who see themselves as conservatives allow women to read lessons, the prayers of the people, serve the chalice, etc; all things that have no precedent in the practice of the church catholic before the 20th century.
If the proposed conservative jurisdiction looks like the conservative half of the ACNA, there’s really no point.
I wonder what Jesus would think about "good fences make good neighbors". Perhaps Paul would approve, hard to say since he wrote so much about unity in the church centere in "the mind of Christ".
Your comments seemingly linking WO to other issues like "social justice" (I read "wokeness") is a tactic I've seen used over and over again and is pretty much a "cheap shot" meant to draw attention from serious, thoughtful differences in what the full witness of Scripture reveals about women in leadership in the church. There are many people who support WO (some of whom are respected biblical scholars, and many of whom are women) who do not prescribe to "progressive" social and ecclesiatical positions. I have no opinion about your two province proposal (I'm not a part of ACNA and have no place to comment on that matter). But some of the assertions in your preamble are worth deeper reflection.