tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post1854336140221542569..comments2024-02-15T03:32:25.686-05:00Comments on Preludium, Anglican and Episcopal futures: To the Archbishop of Canterbury: Let "Yes" Be "Yes", and "No," "No."Mark Harrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06871096746243771489noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-86792440504079214352010-11-22T22:44:20.665-05:002010-11-22T22:44:20.665-05:00So, Sad Conclusion, you're correct. The US Su...So, Sad Conclusion, you're correct. The US Supreme Court has not rules explicitly that the Episcopal Church is "hierarchical." However, the description of the Presbyterian Church that identifies PCUS as "hierarchical" (<i>pace</i> AJM) would seem clearly to apply as well to the Episcopal Church.Marshall Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02807749717320495495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-64229140523566651102010-11-19T20:04:51.909-05:002010-11-19T20:04:51.909-05:00This is the conclusion that one observing all this...This is the conclusion that one observing all this reaches. People like Dahveed and Lapin simply invent a universe of opinions and call them 'facts.' The US Supreme Court has never declared TEC hierarchical -- it has offered no view whatsoever. But that is irrelevant. Perhaps one should conclude that they OUGHT to, or maybe WILL do. But all that is beside the point. This kind of 'progressive' lives in an echo chamber. When it becomes apparent that they are simply purveyors of their private Idaho ideas, they close down the thread and move on. That is the kind of TEC we are now inheriting. put me down as SAD CONCLUSIONAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-4149034552942168582010-11-19T20:04:31.215-05:002010-11-19T20:04:31.215-05:00This is the conclusion that one observing all this...This is the conclusion that one observing all this reaches. People like Dahveed and Lapin simply invent a universe of opinions and call them 'facts.' The US Supreme Court has never declared TEC hierarchical -- it has offered no view whatsoever. But that is irrelevant. Perhaps one should conclude that they OUGHT to, or maybe WILL do. But all that is beside the point. This kind of 'progressive' lives in an echo chamber. When it becomes apparent that they are simply purveyors of their private Idaho ideas, they close down the thread and move on. That is the kind of TEC we are now inheriting. put me down as SAD CONCLUSIONAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-53357952039528040662010-11-17T11:20:45.921-05:002010-11-17T11:20:45.921-05:00US Supreme Court ruling?US Supreme Court ruling?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-79963173329285593302010-11-16T10:35:33.970-05:002010-11-16T10:35:33.970-05:00Where has it ruled this, please?Where has it ruled this, please?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-35511830057242752472010-11-16T09:40:32.383-05:002010-11-16T09:40:32.383-05:00"The US Supreme Court has ruled that TEC is h...<i>"The US Supreme Court has ruled that TEC is hierarchical? Well, that settles it..."</i> <br /><br />Yes, AJM, it does.<br /><br />Still waiting for your answer to Marshall's question <i>"could you tell us the church in which you participate?"</i>, though given the phrasing of the question, <i>"No"</i> is, I suppose, a valid reply.Lapinbizarrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07686990585795363001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-78124881074805684332010-11-16T09:17:03.409-05:002010-11-16T09:17:03.409-05:001. The US Supreme Court has ruled that TEC is hier...1. The US Supreme Court has ruled that TEC is hierarchical? Well, that settles it...<br />2. At issue is whether TEC needs to win every case in order for the hierarchical notion to function properly (and with this, to find a way to get Title IV in place in something like its present form). That is, if the State of Texas sides with Ft Worth (and that looks likely at present) and it joins SC, we will have anomalies in a system now seeking to be air-tight, but not there yet. As I thought I said clearly, no one knows what effect this will have.<br />3. We may also be seeing the beginnings of 'liberal' push back. This is probably exacerbated by the loss of membership, and more importantly, revenue. In a system where dioceses can refuse to support the church leadership, they are doing so. <br />4. We shall also need to see what tweaking of Title IV is going to effect, if anything, and whether dioceses decide to say No (it is also the case that several dioceses actually have no accession language in their canons -- another sure sign of the original, historical polity of this church). AJMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-9339829122106260922010-11-15T19:27:46.758-05:002010-11-15T19:27:46.758-05:00"So the verdict is out on the character of hi...<i>"So the verdict is out on the character of hierarchy above the diocese ..... States will handle this differently, and are so doing."</i> <br /><br />Er, actually AJM ...... No. In every case except the All Saints, Pawleys Island suit (seems we don't use possessive apostrophes down here in SC) state court decisions have unanimously affirmed the hierarchical principle. Even the SC Supreme Court has not rejected it; rather it has ruled that a deed of gift predating Independence places the property beyond the scope of the hierarchical church argument. Had the lawsuit been within the border of a diocese with an interest in pursuing the suit to the Federal level, there is an excellent chance that the Pawleys Island ruling would have been overturned on appeal. As it is, the Supreme Court of the adjacent state of Georgia made it clear in its later ruling on the Christ Church, Savannah case, which reaffirmed the hierarchical principle, that it considers the Pawleys Island ruling irrelevant to the Savannah case and comes surprisingly close to implying that the SC ruling is bad law.<br /><br />Incidentally, AJM, I find <i>"Let us simply say that I have wide personal experience of the Anglican Communion"</i> astonishingly evasive. I doubt that I am alone in this. Try again?Lapinbizarrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07686990585795363001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-12984018277306690902010-11-15T16:14:49.338-05:002010-11-15T16:14:49.338-05:00So AJM, you set aside the fact that the highest co...So AJM, you set aside the fact that the highest court in the land of the USA, the US Supreme Court has declared TEC a hierarchal church.<br /><br />The courts in California appear to have none of the issues that you raise and have pointed to numerous cases across the USA where civil courts in multiple states have also held that TEC was a hierarchal church.Brother Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333089314994730330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-39042733325492599682010-11-15T15:02:05.610-05:002010-11-15T15:02:05.610-05:00Title IV gives to the PB authority that is not gra...Title IV gives to the PB authority that is not granted by the Constitution.<br />Rumors are that Bishops of TEC have themselves voiced concern about the unconstitutionality of Title IV, and that it will be tweaked accordingly. We shall see. <br />'Voluntary Association' is the language that a court would use when trying to understand what kind of an organisation TEC is, and that includes its GenConv. The problem of 'hierarchy' is not my idiosyncrasy or your own, but belongs to an unhappy distinction introduced in the courts. I was using it for that reason. They would likely judge the PCA 'hierarchical' and certainly presbyterianism in general because of the highly organised, even legalistic, way it conducts its business as a church (clerks of session; books of order; etc). To not have a bishop is in fact often to have MORE rules and appeals to procedure. It was not all that surprizing to the typical Scot that for its first years, prior to the construction of a new parliament building, the government as a legal entity used the Kirk's General Assembly building to conduct its business. <br />To understand TEC is to go to school regarding a very unique entity. Sadly, the effort to clear all this up will invariably alter the unique character of this church and create something more hierarchical/rule-orientated. No wonder the Pres of the HoD worries when the Bishops say this or that. She does not like Bishops with authority unlike her own. But if we are going to get this kind of shift, TEC will be forced to import more rules so as to dampen the authority of Bishops and Dioceses -- hence, both a more presbyterian model with an Archbishop! No wonder we are sensing tensions. This is what comes of trying to place Bishops and Dioceses under a central authority -- whatever form that might take. AJMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-25958419294944378842010-11-15T14:19:32.290-05:002010-11-15T14:19:32.290-05:00Hmmm. AJM, you use a distinctly non-ecclesiologic...Hmmm. AJM, you use a distinctly non-ecclesiological definition of "hierarchical." I hesitate to call it idiosyncratic because you seem to be applying a definition from business law, and I can well believe you know that study better than I. However, it confuses matters not to clarify that. For example, if ecclesial government is "presbyterian," then no presbyter is superior to another; and if "congregational," then no congregation is superior to another (tenets of being Presbyterian back when I was one), regardless of how rigorously members observe the rules that define "presbyterian and congregational." Indeed, your usage applies quite well, as near as I can tell, to the Southern Baptist Convention. The Convention has rules, and they are observed and used quite energetically; but no Baptist would accept the definition of the Convention as "hierarchical," because no Baptist would own any "hierarch" under Christ.<br /><br />Even with that in mind, I don't understand how you understand the General Convention to be a "voluntary association." I don't find that definition in the Constitution or Canons (and yes, I looked). And while I will attribute to you authority in civil law, I don't know your authority in canon law, either in the Episcopal Church or in any other ecclesial body.<br /><br />By the same token, I don't understand how you come to the conclusion that Title IV of the Canons violates the Constitution. What part of Title IV as devised in 2009 does so?Marshall Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02807749717320495495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-38223250276557570522010-11-15T13:24:27.157-05:002010-11-15T13:24:27.157-05:00PS--I should probably add. I suspect that because ...PS--I should probably add. I suspect that because the Episcopal Church has bishops, one might reflexively identify this as a 'hierarchy' -- as against churches like the PCA (not the UMC; as has been said in their ranks, never get a Methodist Bishop angry at you...).<br />In the case of TEC, they would be right of course...within a diocese. Dioceses are missional units, with discrete canons, a Bishop, and what one can call a 'hierarchy' -- and it is a fairly clear one (leaving aside the Title IV proposals for a moment). <br />What courts are struggling with--and they are doing so for bona fide reasons of unclarity--is how the hierarchy goes 'up' from there. Historically the PB was ONLY and ALWAYS a presider, so there was no 'hierarchy' there -- and for very good reasons. General Convention is a voluntary association. The Constitution does not envision any hierarchy for Gen Conv or the PB. This messiness is a challenge for civil courts. In SC, the supreme court ruled against any notion of hierarchy beyond the diocesan unit itself. The Texas courts to this point in time have also spoken similarly, so we shall have to wait. <br />All to say, what is at issue in TEC is not at issue in the Anglican Church of Canada or the CofE whose organisation above the diocese uses the legal language of hierarchy. And btw, an unqualified accession has never legally been held to mean a one way street. 'Unqualified' has meant unencumbered. Lots of associations ask for accession of an unqualified sort, and the law allows them to disassociate all the same. <br />So the verdict is out on the character of hierarchy above the diocese and that is why lawsuits demand a hearing on the matter. States will handle this differently, and are so doing. We shall see. <br />AJMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-23432908010772296732010-11-15T11:34:09.551-05:002010-11-15T11:34:09.551-05:00Let us simply say that I have wide personal experi...Let us simply say that I have wide personal experience of the Anglican Communion as well as ecumenical neighbours. <br />1. Title IV will need to be changed so as to assure it is not unconstitutional. Or, the constitution will have to be altered;<br />2. your assurances about the use of Title IV are very kind, but one may also doubt them; appeal to Title 1 is unrealistic. This is the problem with 'class action' categories like 'SSBs' -- OF THEIR VERY NATURE, they will be seen as justice issues, and so will operate above any putative appeal to Title 1. That is the very point. SS Couple A will visit with Priest X. He turns them down. They go public and announce discrimination. Priest X moves forward without any kind of problem? I doubt that mightily. His/her pastoral office will be besmirched. And I hate to say it, but cases are already known where churches/clergy are being targeted, precisely to raise the issue and expose the clergy/church as homophobic. <br />As to the character of TEC's dioceses vis-a-vis a 'national church' -- that is exactly what is being defined at we speak. One side claims history and precedent; the other side does the same thing, but also is busy creating a new polity (it is hoped). If Ft Worth, SC, and others succeed, we shall then know what the 'hierarchy' of TEC looks like. <br />One thing that is hard to know is whether TEC must win all of these to establish what is seeks, or whether any individual losses are themselves totalizing. I believe we are entering unknown territory here.<br />Yes, the PCA is hierarchical, in that it has rules that strictly govern its organisation, and it is not a 'voluntary association' in law as we have in TEC. So too churches like the UMC, which have a Book of Order, courts which discipline, and strict rules governing member churches and clergy.<br />This is what makes TEC rather anomalous and so judges scratch their heads as they try to sort this out. AJMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-54530651586674844142010-11-15T08:31:34.506-05:002010-11-15T08:31:34.506-05:00AJM--
We have very different notions of what the ...AJM--<br /><br />We have very different notions of what the Episcopal Church is! But on one thing we agree: your response seems to say "the Episcopal Church is not a church like the Roman Catholic Church." And on that we agree! <br /><br />But even if not like the RCC, we are still hierarchical. We may choose not to have assessments, but in other matters, notably governance, be quite hierarchical, in, for example, requiring diocesan canons to confirm to national canons. One could, for example, be a church that would allow "accession" to be reversed, as you indicate, and yet we are not: "unqualified" means, well, "unqualified"! My point: there are many ways of doing church, but TEC's pattern vests considerable authority at the national level, with yet substantial authority at the diocesan. And because we're a representative hierarchy (rather than a monarchical one, like the RCC), I put up with things that I don't like, as well as rejoice in things that I do.<br /><br />And yes, thanks, Marshall, no priest need marry anyone; no parish need have a rector that it does not choose (with the input of the bishop). SSBs are not addressed in the C&C, but I'd think that it would follow the marriage canons in this regard. Everyone I know, "liberal" or "conservative," would oppose any attempt to mandate a priest blessing a relationship that he or she did not think should be blessed. <br /><br />In short, you're ritght, AJM, I would not want the "beast" that you describe: but I don't see us getting it, largely because of our tradition of balanced authority. I do see efforts to maintain discipline and to keep us in a tension between autonomy and mutual regard that I find productive of much good.Christopher (P.)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-19876189384856046692010-11-14T20:54:38.119-05:002010-11-14T20:54:38.119-05:00AJM, could you tell us the church in which you par...AJM, could you tell us the church in which you participate? It would help in understanding the background you bring to the discussion.<br /><br />For example, you make the assertion that if General Convention votes to permit same-sex blessings that a priest who refused could be charged under the Title IV Canons (which, by the way, being part of the Canons are not a Constitutional change, don't require two conventions). However, the Title I Canons relating to marriage are explicit that no priest can be required to bless a marriage, without regard to the priest's reason. So, tweaks to Title IV wouldn't change that, and wouldn't create such a requirement.<br /><br />Conversely, that the Episcopal Church is sufficiently hierarchical to have a trust interest in diocesan and parochial assets is well established in Supreme Court decisions. That's why in all but a few instances the Episcopal Church has prevailed (and I'm speaking of historical instances and recent concluded cases in California, Connecticut, and New York. Folks will make assertions about Virgina, Texas, and South Carolina; but those cases aren't concluded, and for their own reasons the Diocese of South Carolina officials haven't pressed the issue).<br /><br />I'm not sure which PCA body you refer to. I can't imagine any Presbyterian body claiming to be hierarchical, so you must be thinking of another. No, I don't think progressives in the Episcopal Church (and as you well know I count myself one) want a structure as rigid as the Roman Church. However, neither do we want a Congregational or Presbyterian system because it's not sufficiently connectional. Our system is connected and internally accountable, while also allowing flexibility. Yeah, it can also be messy; and until very recently Episcopalians both Evangelical and Catholic thought the balance worth the messiness.Marshall Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02807749717320495495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-72584247204291991182010-11-14T16:44:50.679-05:002010-11-14T16:44:50.679-05:00It is probably pointless to say that you state you...It is probably pointless to say that you state your conclusion but do not prove it. Another fully defensible account of TEC is that it has no hierarchy in the normal sense of that. Probably the best indicator has emerged in the context of TEC's present money woes, and drop in attendance which creates it (700K ASA). Dioceses are not 'taxed' as in a typical hierarchy. So only 40 or so give full asking -- 40%. 20% give almost nothing. Also, genuine hierarchies would not tolerate diocesan canons -- the existence of which shows that dioceses exist, and then voluntarily associate. Even accession is a two way street, and the courts have so treated it. One can accede and one can withdraw from an accession. TEC is a 'voluntary association.' That is also why general convention cannot mandate things, but only pass resolutions. The constitution would have to be changed, and that takes two conventions. All to say, these are things that do not exist in the kind of system you are describing. And this, again, is why Ft Worth is likely to win its case; Judge Chupp keeps asking, 'where is your rule book' because he has read FW's and he sees that in an orderly way they have followed their own rules. <br />Now does TEC (PB and others) see this as a problem? You bet. And that is why they continue to seek a hierachical church -- even without changing the constitution, as with Title IV. We gather there will be news out that Title IV will be tweaked, in consequence. But dioceses will need to fold it into their canons in order to hold them hostage to a semi-hierarchy. If they refuse to do that, as in South Carolina, they do so because they view them as unconstitutional. So the issue of SSBs and WO exists within this system of dubious hierarchy and that is why Ft Worth and SC are able to thwart efforts to make them other than they have been. <br />I'm not sure what you mean about the parish's right to do X or Y. If we get a Title IV system in place, and rector X refused to conduct a SSB, he/she could be removed. THIS is what a hierarchical church (like the PCA or RC church) look like, and it puzzles me why liberals want such a beast. AJMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-5835859659863787572010-11-14T14:42:54.437-05:002010-11-14T14:42:54.437-05:00AJM--
Your argument goes directly to the issue of...AJM--<br /><br />Your argument goes directly to the issue of who you think has authority. TEC is the governing authority for those within its church, not the Diocese, and similarly no other church has governing authority in TEC. One may not like it, but there it is, until it is changed, according to the procedures for such changes.<br /><br />But I think that in both WO and SSBs, the issue is the fear of coercion. And again, I struggle to understand. No parish need call a rector it does not want; no rector need bless a relationship that he or she thinks should not be blessed. I really can't find examples where the National Church Canons or even Diocesan Canons regulate the behavior of parish priests to such a degree. (OK, alms for the poor on one Sunday a month is pretty specific, but sheesh, is that a problem?) Chiefly the use of such rules is to regulate procedures and to enjoin practices such as teaching about stewardship and preparing candidates for baptism, about <br />which there is no dispute. The rules don't force people to do things that go to the heart of pastoring, such as calling a rector or blessing a relationship.<br /><br />It is (barely) conceiveable that the church could force something at the parish level, but I haven't seen it, it doesn't follow past practice, it seems nonsensical to do it, and so I would be very surprised to see it. Yet this prospect seems to create great apprehension, concern, and even fear and anger among the more conservative congregations with which I am familiar. And I find that puzzling!Christopher (P.)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-4632866424733331132010-11-14T13:55:34.395-05:002010-11-14T13:55:34.395-05:00I am not arguing against WO. I am arguing against ...I am not arguing against WO. I am arguing against mandating it as a view against the conscience of those who stand with a vast majority of Anglican and Catholic Christians. Why does TEC as a province want to be left alone to do what it feels is right, but will not permit those whose consciences they had promised to honor to hold a catholic view of priesthood? That does not seem fair. If you are in Ft Worth, for example, you will say that your representative form of polity has decided that a male priesthood is what Christ wishes. You will also conclude that this idea of priesthood is held by a vast majority of Anglicans. You will also observe that Ugandas and Nigerians can disagree about this issue, but find a way to honor one another all the same. The C of E sought to do the same thing in its midst, and may well still. TEC agree to do this, and then it became clear that this was only temporarily. I suspect we are seeing the same thing with SSBs. AJMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-37448128730391978252010-11-13T21:15:29.540-05:002010-11-13T21:15:29.540-05:00AJM--
I have a sincere desire to understand the a...AJM--<br /><br />I have a sincere desire to understand the argument against WO (and SSBs, but one thing at a time). I can't see that you've said anything more than--"we've always done it this way." Perhaps supplemented by "many theologians believe denying WO is correct." <br /><br />This is not persuasive to me, when the church (that is, TEC), 1) has in place a process of discernment and decision that is representative of its members (delegates are elected to GC by Diocesan Councils that are themselves representative of their dioceses, while bishops are elected to the episcopal status), and 2) at least in my diocese, the Vestries of churches elect their Rectors, and the Vestries are themselves elected by their members. That is, as a church, we (the broad "we," representing the Church) have decided that ordaining women is OK, and if your parish doesn't want to call one, it doesn't have to, and indeed cannot be forced to. <br /><br />Now it may be that some Anglican provinces rely on appointing priests to parishes, and bishops to dioceses, and so someone might have a real beef that a women priest was "thrust upon them," but that's not the case here. <br /><br />I really believe that there is broad support for WO here, and that, coupled with the existing safeguard that every parish gets to choose its priest--this seems to be enough, isn't it?Christopher (P.)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-43474577879888613002010-11-13T16:24:11.428-05:002010-11-13T16:24:11.428-05:00"....they are wrong, and their view is not to...<i>"....they are wrong, and their view is not to be accommodated/tolerated."</i> If so, and if all you have to offer is <i>"I'm right and you are wrong!"</i>, why do you persist in posting here, wasting your time and ours, AJM?Lapinbizarrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07686990585795363001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-74932597000092101052010-11-13T14:20:12.036-05:002010-11-13T14:20:12.036-05:00PS--it should also be noted that according to TEC ...PS--it should also be noted that according to TEC Fast Facts, TEC has lost 300,000 members since 2002. That is also now translating into revenue losses, to the degree that the PB is acknowledging a cash problem (hence 'nimbleness'). It is hard to imagine how the trends we are observing will improve through mandating WO without exception and also, one can assume, SSBs. So TEC is going to have to become a very different church if it wants to remain solvent and also pursue these alterations it believes must be held by all. AJMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-26063913399242450062010-11-13T13:50:34.529-05:002010-11-13T13:50:34.529-05:00So the point is: they are wrong, and their view is...So the point is: they are wrong, and their view is not to be accommodated/tolerated. Even though WO will be allowed. Anglicanism of this variety is certainly setting itself against Christians of a very great number, worldwide. AJMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-77952018102551539252010-11-13T10:18:55.405-05:002010-11-13T10:18:55.405-05:00Seems I'm pushing Alan Wilson a lot this week,...Seems I'm pushing Alan Wilson a lot this week, AJM, but check out <a href="http://bishopalan.blogspot.com/2010/11/equalities-and-discrimination-101.html" rel="nofollow">Equalities and discrimination 101</a>, his most recent post, and read what a bishop <i>"outside the tiny proportion of TEC"</i> has to say about womens' ordination.<br /><br /><i>"I know a large number of called, dedicated and effective female priests.<br /><br />"I entirely support gender complementarity, but why does this require what in any other context would be gender discrimination — and if you're in any doubt that misogyny was the basis for the exclusion of women from ordained ministry in the eleventh century, just read the literature of the time, about which people are strangely silent.<br /><br />"Fact is, if God didn't want female priests. I'm sure he would stop calling, authoritsing and blessing them so obviously and abundantly as he does. The more time passes, the more obvious this becomes."</i>Lapinbizarrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07686990585795363001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-20979053222919959062010-11-13T09:59:50.609-05:002010-11-13T09:59:50.609-05:00Pfalz -- I'd have thought if you wanted a genu...Pfalz -- I'd have thought if you wanted a genuine answer, you'd also appreciate that a wide proportion of Christians in the Anglican Tradition--outside the tiny proportion of TEC--see women's ordination as problematic. That is why allowance has been made within provinces to protect the consciences of those who believe WO is unbiblical and against the catholic tradition. That is, the burden has now shifted from you to them. Why is that? It is because of a notion of justice that requires uniformity of practice in the name of human rights. That owes a lot to John Locke. It has not been at the centre of Christian theological reflection, but has been regarded as derivative of that reflection. See Romans 1 for the biblical version of 'natural law'. AJMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-65888447819691662632010-11-12T19:58:39.739-05:002010-11-12T19:58:39.739-05:00OK, AJM, help me here, I don't possess a DMin,...OK, AJM, help me here, I don't possess a DMin, and I don't understand why the ordination of women is such a big deal thirty-plus years after the fact. Shouldn't all clergy critters be male Jews, and not only Jews, but descendants of one particular tribe? We've already made two exceptions to the rule, including, I suspect, your own ordination. What's the stumbling block that keeps you from accepting women, or, for that matter, gays, from the ranks of the ordained?Pfalz prophethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10465623376468902861noreply@blogger.com