Kevin and George nailed it. Bishop Chris Warner needs to be disciplined. If we have this rule—letting parishes choose their stance on women’s ordination—bishops should honor it for individual congregations. Otherwise, we need to dump the we'll all get along rule and "you do you" and stop pretending with this oxymoronic big tent mentality we currently have(where ALL views are respected--that in and of itself is non-biblical because two truths cannot both be true (shoutout to John Lennox logic anyone? ). From the outside looking in, it appears Warner is acting like dual integrities is a mere suggestion, bulldozing a parish that already had a majority following the biblical mandate for male-only priests. I’m just a layman, and you can probably guess I'm not egalitarian like Warner is.
I'm no expert on the Mid-Atlantic Diocese’s canons, but surely there’s something about a bishop upending a vestry and congregation. From a governance and unity perspective, a bishop should honor the dual integrities principle for individual congregations. The ACNA’s Constitution and Canons emphasize subsidiarity, stating that “the fundamental agency of mission in the Province is the local congregation” (ACNA Constitution, Article IV). This implies to me (and I'm not a lawyer) that congregations have significant autonomy in faith and practice, including their stance on women’s ordination. The dual integrities principle is a practical outworking of this, designed to prevent bishops from imposing one view on parishes that hold the opposite conviction. Forcing a congregation to adopt a position contrary to its theological stance—say, by mandating openness to women’s ordination leads to situations like this. To me, this means Warner must be disciplined. And yeah, I know he has the power to appoint the priest at Church of the Incarnation(and it was a woman), but it's my understanding from my reading that he has probably violated canons. (but again, I'm not a lawyer, but I can play one on TV if somebody wants to hire me) And besides, the latest reports say more than half of the congregation has left. That's a super majority who supported the complementarian position.
Instead of shepherding God’s Word, the gospel, and the church, it appears Warner shirked his duty by sowing discord and division. This debacle feels like Survivor: Anglican Edition. Behaviors like these actions with the Church of the Incarnation make the ACNA resemble a rerun of the Episcopal Church’s collapse. I thought it wouldn't happen. But here we are, starting that short road to the diabolical discord of doom and death by division. Who’s making it out alive? And I know dual integrities is a secondary issue to salvation, BUT it's not a secondary issue when it starts tearing congregations apart, and that's what it's doing here. The College of Bishops MUST and should now take action on dual integrities. It has to be addressed. This is glaring evidence of the need not to kick the can down the road anymore.
Steve Wood has an opportunity here to right this ship. We need a reasoned, responsible response to this situation. Otherwise, the ACNA will become the ecclesiastical Titanic, and no good Celine Dion song (My Heart Will Go On)sung by all of us on the bow as we go down will save us. We owe our congregations the lifeboat of honest communication, transparency, and accountability. We're trying to grow the kingdom of God, and this type of behavior isn't gonna achieve any of those goals. Non-believers will continue to non-believe because they look at the church and say, What's wrong with those people. Well, I'll tell you what's wrong. It's an unrepentant, self-serving human sin. It needs to be tempered when you get into a leadership position in a church. Admit that you're wrong when you do something contrary to your position's responsibilities and mission. Apologize. It will undoubtedly help your cause. A spirit of harmony can only survive if we remember, when bitterness and self-interest seem to prevail, that we share a common destiny. We'd better not forget that. Unity is important even if impossible in this life, and Faith, repentance, and redemption are our only hope through Jesus Christ. I think it's about forgiveness(singing Don Henley, Heart of the Matter in my head). Thank God for forgiveness.
Mark, keep praying, keep posting, and stay salty. My Bible’s locked and loaded.
There are some dioceses which have been formed and remain committed to one side or the other on this issue.
Eventually, if every diocese becomes like that, then we will end up with a de facto split in the Province, and all the dioceses on each side will work together amongst themselves to make sure that every parish will be able to join a diocese with which it fits in. The final step will be the hardening of positions, and parishes will be forced to take a more extreme position than they would've wanted to. All because the CoB couldn't take a firm stand -- so far, anyway.
Sadly this outcome was woven into the fabric of ACNA. WO was always going to be the deal breaker. The participant churches/dioceses essentially agreed to disagree on an issue that would be decided at a later date. The decision when finally made was indecisive, an attempt to keep everyone together without taking a stand. Exactly the way ACNA began, but now with Canons and structures in place that support and protect the organization not the individuals, dioceses, parishes, clergy, and parishioners. Sadly again right where many predicted this would end.
George and Kevin claim it’s not a salvation issue. However it’s a departure from Scripture, which even ACNA after their dithering multi year study acknowledged as fact. I think that is a salvation issue.
I have been in the Continuum over 40 years, following a lifetime in TEC. I have seen many things in Anglicanism in my days and I am not surprised that ACNA is where it is. In many ways they are now acting like the old TEC. In this light I don’t see any way forward for them remaining together.
I don't think it's a salvation issue, but it definitely affects the orthodoxy and health of a church. Yes, that may be a distinction without a difference on my part.
Mark, if we acknowledge baptism AND the Eucharist as “generally necessary for salvation” and a woman priestess is “consecrating” a Eucharist, making it invalid, how does that not impact salvation?
I'm glad for Kevin and Fr. Conger. But I am not an evangelical. So when they begin discussing what doctrines are "salvific," my soul trembles. Who decides what part of the Faith I can ignore? Even if "salvificability" were an actual thing, who determines that this is the dividing line?
But this is not the case here. WO 𝑖𝑠 a "salvific" issue. A woman can no more confect the Holy Eucharist at Mass than a man can confect a new human life in the womb. She cannot stand before the altar 𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑎 𝐶ℎ𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖. For a woman to go through the motions --sincere as she may be-- leaves the wine and bread absolutely unaltered: no body of Christ and no blood of Christ. You may as well be a Baptist. Her "sacrament" is invalid. It is not efficacious to any extent. If the Eucharist is what St. Ignatius called it, "the medicine of immortality," then does this not make WO a "salvific" concern?
Not to be Captain Obvious, but Anglo-Catholic folks tend to argue about WO for ontological reasons and Reformational Anglican folks tend to argue about it for doxological/exegetical reasons. Even if the WO issue were resolved, next up is "can AC and RA folks continue under the same umbrella?" Those identifying as "Anglicans" would face yet a different Amos 3:3 conundrum, in the unlikely event WO were no longer a point of contention. And that might be even more fractious.
If the ACNA professes equal respect for "dual integrities," it needs to actually respect them. The episodes with the Archbishop intervening directly into the REC over the Calvin Robinson temporary license and now his non-intervention in the case of Incarnation Anglican in Williamsburg VA indicate that one integrity is more respected than the other.
If these matters are not corrected and no apologies are offered, it may be time for those who hold to the scripture and the Church Fathers' examples to face how they are going to maintain their convictions in the face of persecution in the Church. We've been here before. "Dual integrities" don't work for matters which one side considers essential.
The problem with that episode, and with Kevin and Fr. George generally, is that they're not reporters and can't follow up on the stories that come their way. They both have day jobs. In most of their episodes, their knowledge of events and memories of past events is limited to basically what they can remember off the cuff. We haven't had a genuine conservative Anglican journalist since the late Auburn Faber Traycik.
Kevin and George nailed it. Bishop Chris Warner needs to be disciplined. If we have this rule—letting parishes choose their stance on women’s ordination—bishops should honor it for individual congregations. Otherwise, we need to dump the we'll all get along rule and "you do you" and stop pretending with this oxymoronic big tent mentality we currently have(where ALL views are respected--that in and of itself is non-biblical because two truths cannot both be true (shoutout to John Lennox logic anyone? ). From the outside looking in, it appears Warner is acting like dual integrities is a mere suggestion, bulldozing a parish that already had a majority following the biblical mandate for male-only priests. I’m just a layman, and you can probably guess I'm not egalitarian like Warner is.
I'm no expert on the Mid-Atlantic Diocese’s canons, but surely there’s something about a bishop upending a vestry and congregation. From a governance and unity perspective, a bishop should honor the dual integrities principle for individual congregations. The ACNA’s Constitution and Canons emphasize subsidiarity, stating that “the fundamental agency of mission in the Province is the local congregation” (ACNA Constitution, Article IV). This implies to me (and I'm not a lawyer) that congregations have significant autonomy in faith and practice, including their stance on women’s ordination. The dual integrities principle is a practical outworking of this, designed to prevent bishops from imposing one view on parishes that hold the opposite conviction. Forcing a congregation to adopt a position contrary to its theological stance—say, by mandating openness to women’s ordination leads to situations like this. To me, this means Warner must be disciplined. And yeah, I know he has the power to appoint the priest at Church of the Incarnation(and it was a woman), but it's my understanding from my reading that he has probably violated canons. (but again, I'm not a lawyer, but I can play one on TV if somebody wants to hire me) And besides, the latest reports say more than half of the congregation has left. That's a super majority who supported the complementarian position.
Instead of shepherding God’s Word, the gospel, and the church, it appears Warner shirked his duty by sowing discord and division. This debacle feels like Survivor: Anglican Edition. Behaviors like these actions with the Church of the Incarnation make the ACNA resemble a rerun of the Episcopal Church’s collapse. I thought it wouldn't happen. But here we are, starting that short road to the diabolical discord of doom and death by division. Who’s making it out alive? And I know dual integrities is a secondary issue to salvation, BUT it's not a secondary issue when it starts tearing congregations apart, and that's what it's doing here. The College of Bishops MUST and should now take action on dual integrities. It has to be addressed. This is glaring evidence of the need not to kick the can down the road anymore.
Steve Wood has an opportunity here to right this ship. We need a reasoned, responsible response to this situation. Otherwise, the ACNA will become the ecclesiastical Titanic, and no good Celine Dion song (My Heart Will Go On)sung by all of us on the bow as we go down will save us. We owe our congregations the lifeboat of honest communication, transparency, and accountability. We're trying to grow the kingdom of God, and this type of behavior isn't gonna achieve any of those goals. Non-believers will continue to non-believe because they look at the church and say, What's wrong with those people. Well, I'll tell you what's wrong. It's an unrepentant, self-serving human sin. It needs to be tempered when you get into a leadership position in a church. Admit that you're wrong when you do something contrary to your position's responsibilities and mission. Apologize. It will undoubtedly help your cause. A spirit of harmony can only survive if we remember, when bitterness and self-interest seem to prevail, that we share a common destiny. We'd better not forget that. Unity is important even if impossible in this life, and Faith, repentance, and redemption are our only hope through Jesus Christ. I think it's about forgiveness(singing Don Henley, Heart of the Matter in my head). Thank God for forgiveness.
Mark, keep praying, keep posting, and stay salty. My Bible’s locked and loaded.
There are some dioceses which have been formed and remain committed to one side or the other on this issue.
Eventually, if every diocese becomes like that, then we will end up with a de facto split in the Province, and all the dioceses on each side will work together amongst themselves to make sure that every parish will be able to join a diocese with which it fits in. The final step will be the hardening of positions, and parishes will be forced to take a more extreme position than they would've wanted to. All because the CoB couldn't take a firm stand -- so far, anyway.
I watched the episode.
Sadly this outcome was woven into the fabric of ACNA. WO was always going to be the deal breaker. The participant churches/dioceses essentially agreed to disagree on an issue that would be decided at a later date. The decision when finally made was indecisive, an attempt to keep everyone together without taking a stand. Exactly the way ACNA began, but now with Canons and structures in place that support and protect the organization not the individuals, dioceses, parishes, clergy, and parishioners. Sadly again right where many predicted this would end.
George and Kevin claim it’s not a salvation issue. However it’s a departure from Scripture, which even ACNA after their dithering multi year study acknowledged as fact. I think that is a salvation issue.
I have been in the Continuum over 40 years, following a lifetime in TEC. I have seen many things in Anglicanism in my days and I am not surprised that ACNA is where it is. In many ways they are now acting like the old TEC. In this light I don’t see any way forward for them remaining together.
I don't think it's a salvation issue, but it definitely affects the orthodoxy and health of a church. Yes, that may be a distinction without a difference on my part.
Mark, if we acknowledge baptism AND the Eucharist as “generally necessary for salvation” and a woman priestess is “consecrating” a Eucharist, making it invalid, how does that not impact salvation?
That’s the argument, and I certainly respect it.
Two-tier Steve. 😄👍
I wanted a rhyme like “Two Tier Kier” but oh well. 😉
Two-tier Steve, orthodoxy he won’t achieve.
Clever!
I'm glad for Kevin and Fr. Conger. But I am not an evangelical. So when they begin discussing what doctrines are "salvific," my soul trembles. Who decides what part of the Faith I can ignore? Even if "salvificability" were an actual thing, who determines that this is the dividing line?
But this is not the case here. WO 𝑖𝑠 a "salvific" issue. A woman can no more confect the Holy Eucharist at Mass than a man can confect a new human life in the womb. She cannot stand before the altar 𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑎 𝐶ℎ𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖. For a woman to go through the motions --sincere as she may be-- leaves the wine and bread absolutely unaltered: no body of Christ and no blood of Christ. You may as well be a Baptist. Her "sacrament" is invalid. It is not efficacious to any extent. If the Eucharist is what St. Ignatius called it, "the medicine of immortality," then does this not make WO a "salvific" concern?
Not to be Captain Obvious, but Anglo-Catholic folks tend to argue about WO for ontological reasons and Reformational Anglican folks tend to argue about it for doxological/exegetical reasons. Even if the WO issue were resolved, next up is "can AC and RA folks continue under the same umbrella?" Those identifying as "Anglicans" would face yet a different Amos 3:3 conundrum, in the unlikely event WO were no longer a point of contention. And that might be even more fractious.
I’m very concerned about the current issues facing ACNA. I didn’t think AU was piling on, but can see how some involved would think that to be true.
Wow - I did not know about this YouTube Channel! Thank you!
If the ACNA professes equal respect for "dual integrities," it needs to actually respect them. The episodes with the Archbishop intervening directly into the REC over the Calvin Robinson temporary license and now his non-intervention in the case of Incarnation Anglican in Williamsburg VA indicate that one integrity is more respected than the other.
If these matters are not corrected and no apologies are offered, it may be time for those who hold to the scripture and the Church Fathers' examples to face how they are going to maintain their convictions in the face of persecution in the Church. We've been here before. "Dual integrities" don't work for matters which one side considers essential.
The problem with that episode, and with Kevin and Fr. George generally, is that they're not reporters and can't follow up on the stories that come their way. They both have day jobs. In most of their episodes, their knowledge of events and memories of past events is limited to basically what they can remember off the cuff. We haven't had a genuine conservative Anglican journalist since the late Auburn Faber Traycik.
I think they do a good job regardless. And they often do follow up.
Oh, yes, I think they do a good job, too. I was just trying to point out their quite reasonable limitations.