Lisa and I have a very dear friend named Sarah. We graduated together in the same class both at Wheaton and Duke. Last summer she was an assistant to the bishops at Lambeth. Right now she's serving an Episcopal Church in southern Florida and is pursuing holy orders. I can't think of a better argument for the ordination of women than my friend Sarah. Anyway, she asked me a good question a few weeks ago and thinks it's a good idea to post her letter and my response here for anyone interested. To wit:
--
Hi Phil!
I was so glad to see your pictures of the start of the year on your blog! How awesome to see the students from other parts of the communion. That was certainly one of the best and most encouraging things about being at Lambeth was meeting members of the Communion from all over the world. I was wondering if you could share with me your reasoning for being ordained in the Episcopal Church, whether in an email or on your blog. As someone who will probably be a postulant soon who has a lot of concerns (which have only heightened since the deposition of Bishop Duncan last week), I would appreciate hearing your thinking about this.
Also, I met Bishop Ackerman at Lambeth and talked with him several times and just loved him. What a personable and wonderful man. He was truly the friendliest bishop at Lambeth who did a better job of relating to the stewards (all young adults) than any other bishop at Lambeth - he went out of his way to speak to us and was just so great. I wish he could be my bishop :) You are blessed to be under his care.
I am so excited about the baby! Congrats. Say hi to Lisa for me!
Peace,
Sarah
--
Sarah,
Ordination in TEC - interesting question these days, isn't it? I'm actually not sure that I will be ordained within it, because Bishop Ackerman may be leading Quincy the same direction that Duncan was leading Pittsburg, until he was deposed. But I would gladly be ordained by bishop Ackerman even were he still in TEC, and I will explain why.
Actually the basic logic was articulated by Rowan Williams in a letter of last year to Bishop Howe of Florida. Apparently Howe inquired about alternative primatial oversight or something like that. And Rowan responded with our best understanding of 'patristic' eccelsiology. (I used the scare-quotes, because of the provisionality of our historical knowledge and the shifting nature of our best guesses about these
things - in this case, his argument is based especially on St Ignatius' letters, and on St Cyprian's treatise de unitate catholicae ecclesiae). And that is, that the bishop is the focal point of the unity of the catholic church, as well the visible symbol of the continuity of the contemporary church with the apostles, and everything in between. 'Where the bishop is, there let the people be, just as where Christ is, there is the catholic church' - so said St Ignatius. And St Cyprian, in an admittedly difficult paragraph, spoke of the authority which Christ invested to all of the apostles, and by derivation to their successors the bishops, and therefore of the essential unity of the episcopate. Meaning, in terms of 'sacramental
reality,' that a bishop is a bishop is a bishop. The bishop of Quincy, who oversees about 20 very small little parishes in rural Illinois, is - a bishop. The bishop of Rome is - a bishop. And the bishop of Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, Canterbury - they are all fundamentally the same sort of thing that little bishop Ackerman is: bishops in the catholic church.
Now to bring that to bear on the present situation. The bishop of central Florida, Howe, is a bishop in the catholic church; the presiding bishop, who, rather like the gentiles, is seeking to lord her authority over the other bishops of the church, is for all that - nothing but a bishop. Because it is not possible to be anything more
than a bishop. Christ did not institute elaborate hierarchies of patriarchs, primates, metropolitans, etc: Christ gathered around him apostles, and it is the faith of the catholic church that these men ordained successors to carry on their office, in accordance with the will of their Lord; but there is nothing in the NT or in the pre-Nicene period of the church's history to suggest that there is any spiritual reality to the different gradations of bishops that have developed over time. These elaborations are of merely human origin, they are matters of postive human law.
How better to describe this? I used to look at the bishops as a pyramid: the pope, the cardinals, the bishops, in the Roman church; the ABC, the other primates, the bishops, in our own. But according to the principles of early patristic ecclesiology - those drawn on by Rowan himself - the episcopate is not a pyramid: it's 'flat.' A bishop is a bishop is a bishop.
And the bishop is, so to speak, the basic 'building block' of the catholic church: it is in the bishop that the unity of the catholic church across space and time is focused, for the benefit of the church itself and also for the sake of our witness to the world.
Now different people would go different places with this, but I'll tell you where I go with it. If you are in communion with such a catholic bishop, then you are in communion with the catholic church - granted, in attenuated, weakened, broken form (do to our grievous divisions), but for all that nevertheless the reality of the one
Church which is Christ's body, and no less his body for the fact of its being broken. You may be in TEC, you may be outside of it. I don't actually care anymore either way about that: you see, if I'm right about the episcopal-ecclesiology, if the church is 'flat,' then in the most important sense TEC doesn't actually exist. Of course there are buildings, a presiding bishop, a website, etc, but none of these
things have any reality spiritually. What is real is the body of Christ: and I believe that an essential gift which God has given to the church to ensure its unity and continuity is the catholic bishop. If you are with the bishop, then you are with the church.
Think for a minute about the fourth century. St Athanasius was exiled FIVE TIMES by arian bishops and emperors. That doesn't cease to amaze me. Now, do we really believe that an arian heretic had the spiritual authority to depose Athanasius? I don't think so. I think that Athanasius remained a bishop in the catholic church, whatever Constantius II or Auxentius or anyone else said about him or did to him. You can draw the parallel easily to today. Is Bishop Duncan any less a bishop in the catholic church today, than he was 8 days ago? My answer to the question is as simple as the answer to the question regarding Athanasius. Both alike are confessors of the catholic faith.
What about the presiding bishop? Now there are real questions which I don't think you will be offended with me mentioning which do pertain to her gender. Nevertheless I don't care a bit about any of that compared with the fact that she is an out and out heretic. And that means, in the lines of my analogy, that she is like the arian bishops of the 4th century who deposed and exiled St Athanasius. What does that mean about the deeper spiritual meaning of her episcopate? I don't know, I'm quite certain that only God knows for certain. But I am sure of this: I would much sooner forgo ordination entirely than suffer ordination at her hands. Exactly the same thing would need to be said of Auxentius in the 4th c. This is not to say necessarily that such an ordination would be invalid. I just don't want anything to do with it! I want to be a part of the catholic church, where the one Faith is confessed, taught, and died for, where people are filled with the Holy Spirit, with hearts blazing with the love of God! And I'd rather be doorkeeper in the house of the Lord than dwell in the tents of the wicked.
All to say: if you have a bishop who is a catholic bishop, who keeps the faith and is filled with the love of God, then I can only encourage you to seek ordination from his hands. It will not be that man who ordains you, but the Holy Spirit of the living God. And though you remain, as far as the eyes of flesh can see, in TEC, in terms of the deeper spiritual reality you will be in the catholic church. And if my bishop is catholic, but not in TEC, and your bishop is catholic, but in TEC - then, I believe, we would be in far greater communion with one another than were both of our bishops sitting in the same house, while practicing two different faiths.
I am convinced that TEC is dead and dying, as a visible instution. In fact I think that God is punishing this church, probably not so much for its rank heresy and whatnot in the last generation, as much as for its complacency, pride, absence of zeal for mission, and life of luxury and self-indulgence which marked it in large part from its inception. There have been a few luminous exceptions to that dark
assessment, and by God's grace there will continue to be saints raised up within the visible confines of TEC who keep the faith and serve Christ faithfully. May you be such a one as this - or may you be a saint outside TEC: in the end I don't think it will matter at all. Only let us in this life live faithfully in the one, broken Church of God: and at the last day may we be found with all the saints in the joy of
Christ's eternal Kingdom.
So good to hear from you Sarah. I do hope this was at least a bit helpful, let me know if there is anything more I can do to help you think through things. You're always welcome to visit up here, by the way! Lisa says hello, and I'm sure our little baby would too if he or she knew to!
Peace be with you,
Phil
--
Hi Phil,
Wow, thanks so much! I really appreciate your response. Actually, Rowan told me something similar this summer at Lambeth when I asked him what he would tell people who feel at odds with their province but don't feel like leaving the Episcopal Church is the answer. He said that the "province" is a fairly new phenomenon in the structure of the church; the diocese is the basic unit of the church. He suggested that if I can find a diocese where I feel like I can carry out a mutual ministry with people I trust and respect, then that is enough. I don't think that in the current environment in which the national church is so actively persecuting faithful ministers like Bishop Duncan et al, it really is ultimately "enough," but I do think it is at least a start. Bishop Smith is a wonderful man. We just had diocesan convention for the past couple of days, and he is a great leader. That's cool that your neighbors are from this diocese! Is one of them in the ordination process through this diocese?
Things are going very well at my new church in Florida and the ordination process is moving along in exciting ways! I have considered coming to Nashotah for the summer weeklong course in liturgy and would really like to do that if it is possible.
Blessings on you and Lisa and the littlest Anderas!
Peace,
Sarah
