A Revealing Statement on the Conclave from Forward in Faith N. A.

Overnight, Forward in Faith North America (FIFNA) released a statement on the ACNA Conclave and its decision on womens’ ordination.  This statement finally answers some questions I and others have raised.  The beginning should not be skimmed past:

Beloved in Christ,

As the Council of Forward in Faith, North America we have discussed with the six FiF NA bishops who have just returned from Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, where they met in Conclave, the implications of the Message from the College of Bishops. They have been very clear that the agreement of the College is that individual statements, and, in particular, attributing to individual bishops, their comments cannot occur. Moreover, any comments that would appear to suggest some form of “victory” would be highly inappropriate. 

Thus the quiet from anti-WO bishops is explained – the College of Bishops agreed that there would not be individual public statements afterward from bishops.  (That begs the question of why at least three bishops from dioceses that recognize the Holy Orders of women have made statements.  But I will just leave that question out there for now.)  But FIFNA has discussed matters with the six FIF bishops, who all oppose womens’ ordination of course.  So Forward in Faith’s statement should give some insight into what happened at Conclave and into the thinking of the six and likeminded bishops.

And these six may think that the result of the Conclave may not be as bad or as final as some think.  First, they are making a point to avoid and to urge others to avoid “any comments that would appear to suggest some form of ‘victory.’”  Second, “the College understands that the January meeting in Melbourne Florida will be the next opportunity for them to meet and prayerfully proceed.”  And later (Emphasis mine.): “This Conclave was designed and reported to be the very first time that serious theological conversation has occurred regarding the nature of Holy Orders as an innovation in the Episcopal Church in 1976.”  So it may not be as over as it seemed at first.

I had suggested that the Conclave was not all that unanimous.  I appear to be correct: “We also acknowledge that the Statement was unanimously endorsed, but that this endorsement does not imply that Traditionalist Bishops have reached any conclusion other than the one that has been articulated for 2000 years.”

FIFNA puts a positive face on the current situation and emphasizes conciliarity but then acknowledges, probably also reflecting the mind of the six FIF bishops:

…we are disappointed. We wonder if this would not have been an excellent opportunity for those Bishops who ordain women to recognize that this action continues to cause division. We wonder if it would not have been possible for those bishops to announce a moratorium on the ordination of women, rather than continuing to contribute to the potential of an Ecumenical crisis. We wonder if those bishops would recognize that female clergy cannot function in most of the Dioceses of the ACNA and in the vast majority of Christian churches throughout the world. In that regard they have intentionally or unintentionally effected a state of impaired Communion, whereby not all Clergy are in Communion with one another. We further recognize that many Forward in Faith Bishops are put in an awkward position regarding their ability to participate in the consecration of Bishops who fully intend to contribute to disunity by virtue of their willingness to ordain women.

It is hard for me to improve on that.  Thus Forward in Faith North America has issued a very helpful statement.  They have provided some clarity on what happened at Conclave and on the mind of traditionalist bishops.  Since the Conclave there has been not a little unhappiness among traditionalists, particularly clergy.  And the quiet from traditionalist bishops certainly taxed the patience of some.  Hopefully this statement and bishop-clergy meetings and communications in the dioceses will calm things down.

However, peace and unity are not one-way streets as the statement itself notes in its irenic way.  Pro-WO bishops and dioceses also need to make a point to calm matters, not inflame them with the usual baggage that so often accompanies WO in the West, such as using the auspices of ACNA to push a so-called “social justice” agenda.  Nor should there be a rush to ordain women as there was immediately after the formation of ACNA.

But I am nonetheless thankful for this statement from Forward in Faith North America.  While not telling everything, it provides some needful clarity and perspective.