I recently had an exchange with a priest from the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA). As our church situation has collapsed due to the degeneration of worship into therapy, politics, and entertainment and the fact that Trumpites are running rampant in many local congregations including our own, we've been looking for an alternative.
I'm not an Anglican in any way. I have been part of overseas
Anglican services in the past (as crucifer and lay Eucharistic minister),
something I wouldn't do today. In terms of doctrine my views of the sacraments
can certainly be described as 'high' and there are doctrinal points in which I
find significant resonance with both Confessional Lutheranism and conservative
Anglicanism. That said, when it comes to ecclesiology their rejection of the
Sufficiency of Scripture is highly problematic and it overshadows their polity
and liturgy.
Over the past thirty years we've seen many grow disgusted
with the entertainment and circus antics of the Evangelical world and as such
they have migrated to Anglicanism, Lutheranism, and not a few have dared to
swim the Tiber and join Rome and even the ranks of Eastern Orthodoxy. At
present it seems like that's the choice you have – 'rock out' with a praise
team and a pastor/comedian, or go High Church and live in the world of robes,
bells, and smells as they say.
I have always rejected both and continue to argue for both high
doctrine and New Testament simplicity.
But if I have no choice at all and it's either stay home or
choose one of these options – I'll pick the High Church. It's unbiblical but at
least it's reverent, historical, and the liturgical forms (such as the Book of
Common Prayer) are for the most part theologically sound.
The ACNA which broke from the mainline Episcopal body in 2009
is growing and is something of a conservative reaction to the apostasy of
American Episcopalianism and its open embrace of sodomy. And yet, like so many
of the 'conservative' movements that have risen up in recent years to oppose
the mainline bodies, the ACNA's conservatism still includes the ordination of
women to the priesthood (but not the episcopate). Apparently it's not terribly
common to find women priests but it does happen. There are ACNA congregations (again
representing the conservative reaction to Episcopalianism) that have women
leading. It's similar to what we see in the United Methodist Church. You have
'conservatives' opposing the sodomite wing within the denomination and yet some
of those conservatives are ordained women.
In other words the conservatism in these groups is already on
the theologically liberal Scripture-compromised side of the line. And sadly,
they will form new denominations and bureaucracies but in twenty years or so
they'll be right back where they were before. They are treating symptoms, not
the problem and apparently many of their leaders have still failed to identify
the core problems that led to the deviation and fall of the mainline bodies
they have broken with.
The ACNA has its roots in Western Pennsylvania and there are
some congregations within driving distance of where I live – long drives but as
I live in a rural area I'm somewhat used to the prospect. A new work has
emerged that is within 'striking distance' as it were and as we're still
struggling to find somewhere to attend regularly I started communicating with
the priest. I wanted to know if there would be woman officiating. He said 'no',
and yet he had to qualify his statement. There is an ordained woman who attends
and participates in the service. However, in the capacity of their congregation
she's a deaconess and not a priest.
He then went on to explain that while he was opposed to woman
presbyters and women's ordination to the priesthood, he saw a Biblical basis
for the office of deaconess.
Now, it can be granted that there is a case to be made for
the office of deaconess – Phoebe in Romans 16 is usually appealed to at this
point. Some dispute it, as the word (diakonos)
can also simply mean servant. Others
(including this writer) would argue that the diaconate is not an authoritative
office to begin with. It has tasks and qualifications but deacons don't possess
the authority of elders and in normal terms are not handling the Word as it
were. The idea of deaconess if indeed it is a separate office might be further
illuminated by the qualifications given by Paul in 1 Timothy 3. It might be
said that the wives of deacons are deaconesses as the qualifications for deacon
include requirements for their wives.
Others chafe at this and argue there is no such office in the
New Testament. More could be said about Church History, the testimony in the
Early Church (which certainly testifies even in the second century to the
office of deaconess) and so forth. There are some who would promote the idea in
the interests of modern feminism. They are to be rejected. There are others who
simply wish to be Biblical and also see a historical basis for the discussion.
Different people are motivated by different concerns.
And yet when it comes to the priest's comments we have
another problem. In the Anglican tradition the deacon is not someone who 'waits
on tables' as it were. It's not an office oriented towards a kind of 'in the
trenches' service of helping people in the congregation and dispensing funds to
the poor and the like. On the contrary the deacon functions as something like
the priest's helper during the service and those holding the office are often
figures transitioning or in-process to the priesthood. It's a completely
different office and role than found in the New Testament. Consequently deacons
are wearing vestments, reading Scripture, leading prayers, and sometimes
preaching. In some situations they can baptise and perform marriages. They do
most of the things the priest does and yet hold a different position within the
episcopal hierarchy.
Now it involves a leap in logic to move from deaconesses are Biblical to the Anglican concept of the diaconate is
Biblical. They have effectively redefined the office and its functions in
terms of their own tradition but then suddenly want to argue from the Bible and early tradition for
the validity of deaconesses. They are begging the question and thus it's a
somewhat dishonest move. What they're doing isn't Biblical nor is it frankly
all that traditional. In fact the Anglicans didn't introduce women deacons (and
again deacons as per Anglican ecclesiology) until the nineteenth century – one
of the early steps on their road to theological liberalism.
In the end, I decided that I didn't want to drive more than
hour to sit in a congregation where a woman is up front – a woman who happens
to believe herself to be an ordained priest, and yet in that capacity is acting
in the role of deacon. If I want to hear women leading the liturgy, I'll just
stay closer to home and try to find one of the more sober Evangelical congregations
or one limited by low numbers and therefore unable to fulfill their dreams of a
praise team and the like. I've been in plenty of those types of meetings wherein
the women are giving sermonettes between the hymns, at prayer time, and the
like. I don't want to attend those congregations that bring shame on themselves
– which is what Paul said concerning them. But I'm also not going to drive to
an Anglican congregation (only in the hope of finding sober worship) just to
have to listen to more women (contra the Scriptures) speak during the meeting –
and most likely participate in the administration of the Lord's Supper. If I'm
going to entangle myself with Anglicanism, then I would (at the very least)
want it to be conservative and traditional.
The Anglican concept of the diaconate is defective and as
such it provides a vehicle for other errors to creep in.