This time from +Todd Hunter, Ordinary of the oddly-named Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others (C4SO), arguably ACNA's most untethered - some would say unhinged - "diocese", as it a veritable cauldron of wokism, shoddy theology, and charismania:
Dear Clergy,
I write today to celebrate and encourage our female clergy. C4SO is blessed and privileged to have as colleagues dozens of godly, Spirit-anointed, fruitful women in Holy Orders. They serve as Deacons, Priests, Rectors, Deans and in key roles on our Ministry Team. They are among my most trusted advisors. You can find C4SO’s permanent and livable views and values regarding women in leadership here.
None of this will surprise you, but it needs to be reinforced today because of derogatory comments toward women clergy made by a speaker at last week’s Mere Anglicanism, one of the most notable conferences within the ACNA. I did not attend the conference, and I did not hear the talk, but several C4SO leaders have brought the matter to my attention.
Today I saw a letter from Bishop Chip Edgar of the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina to his clergy. I cite it here as an example of best practices within the challenge of "dual integrity."
Our women pay a high price for being in ACNA. On the matter of Holy Orders, they are talked about but rarely listened to. For men in ACNA, dual integrities is a concept. For women, it can be a dehumanizing tool for rejection.
I will not publicly comment on the Mere Anglicanism lecture because 1) I do not want to reward bad behavior; 2) I don't want to respond to the anxious reactivity of our denominational system; 3) no new historical, exegetical, lexical or hermeneutical claims were made. Had the speaker made claims to new ground, our Canon Theologians and I would write something in response in good faith.
Please join me today in giving thanks to God for our female clergy. Call, text or email one of them to express your love, respect and solidarity.
I am better, and C4SO is better, because we work as one—lay and clergy, female and male.
Grace and peace,
Bishop Todd Hunter
It's hard to know where to begin in untangling this bird's nest of error and confusion. I guess I'll start with the observation many orthodox Anglican clergy and laity, including Fr. Robinson, are making today in private fora about Hunter's letter, which is that the bishop has actually proved Robinson's point about Critical Theory. Observe the underlying theme of the oppression and liberation of women in the church. Observe how, instead of referrning to "male and female", the traditional hierarchical order of reference rooted in both biblical ontology and cultural tradition, he reverses it with "female and male." Typical feminist fare. Ergo: Bishop Hunter is to be thanked for making the exact point Fr. Robinson made at the Mere Anglicanism Conference.
Secondly, Hunter asserts that Fr. Robinson made "derogatory comments toward women (sic) clergy." That is an assertion that borders on false witness. Robinson's comments were neither derogatory nor aimed at female clergy per se. They were principally aimed at the Anglican Church in North America, its idiotic notion of dual integrities (idiotic because oxymoronic) and the connection of feminism, and hence women's ordination, to Critical Theory. Fr. Robinson's criticism was aimed just as much at the Church of England and The Episcopal Church as it was at the ACNA. Hunter's red herring here will be evident to anyone familiar with informal logical fallacies.
Thirdly, Hunter calls Robinson out for his "bad behavior". If trying to press for honest and open discussion at a public discussion forum about how Critical Theory has deleteriously affected Anglicanism is "bad behavior", then please God, let's have more of such behavior. But the ACNA isn't really interested in honest and open discussion, and this is especially the case in woke C4SO.
Lastly, Hunter makes the odd claim that "no new historical, exegetical, lexical or hermeneutical claims were made. Had the speaker made claims to new ground, our Canon Theologians and I would write something in response in good faith." I find this amusing since ACNA itself essentially concluded in its formal study on women's ordination that at the end of the day there are no valid historical, exegetical, lexical or hermeneutical claims to be made in defense of the practice of women's ordination, old or new. One Anglican educator responds:
"Had the speaker made claims to new ground..."
The entire orientation is pig-headed. Most of theology is settled. We shouldn't be looking for, much less requiring, new claims.
The charge is they are biblically in rebellion against God. It's not a debate, but a factual matter the ordination of women is sin and those who practice it should be subjected to church discipline, including excommunication if necessary. Theologically they are out of step with church history. Requiring new ground shows a compromised theological method right from the start.
There's no new ground because the biblical position is settled, and treating it like it is not is itself a sinful rebellion.
The fact that ACNA nevertheless persists in its "dual integrities" hallucination for constitutional and canonical reasons is a dire symptom of its inner sickness.
This missive from +Hunter does not surprise anyone who has followed his personal history, first in The Vineyard and then "Three Streams" Anglicanism, and especially the extremely troubling way he was so quickly elevated to the rank of bishop as a relatively recent convert to Anglicanism. We expect better formation and quality of thought from an Anglican bishop, however. Alas.