7th September 2009

I don't read Stand Firm and this discussion reminds me of some of the reasons why. When you are dealing with believers in the Protestant principle (private judgement and a fallible church) be they liberal or conservative as in this case you're talking to a wall. And if they tie a hand behind your back by editing and banning you, forget it!

That said:

I don't say 'priestess'. I think much of that is to do with not actually being Anglican any more (as opposed to being proud of and thankful for my grounding in Anglo-Catholicism). If you accept that Anglicanism runs on Protestant principles and you don't, women priests aren't automatically the enemy any more. (They make sense if you're Protestant.) I believe in blogging ecumenism; a woman priest is in my blogroll and I count her as a friend.

The word is an insult that means 'non-Christian'. The Anglican churches including the Episcopalians are still, on paper, Christian denominations. So I can say 'the Episcopal priest' like 'the Methodist bishop' without necessarily getting into a discussion on valid orders.

Going into a Protestant forum and throwing the word around is just rude so being banned is understandable.

I agree on T1:9, having been censored there recently. They've got a problem. (The Elves are copping an attitude.)

I also agree that these people (including ACNA) aren't Catholics or even classical Protestants in many cases but circa-1988 Episcopalians (because they have no women bishops... but logically if you have given in on women priests it makes no sense to ban that).


Dear Mr. Beeler,

As another former Episcopalian, I appreciated your message. As an Episcopalian, I thought that ordaining women was absolutely unacceptable and an embrace of all sorts of evils. That was where the chasm between orthodoxy and heresy lay.

I don’t think that now, after eight-some years as a [Roman] Catholic. The essential problem, as I’ve written on other strings, is with being a Protestant in the first place, but once you are, an innovation like ordaining women seems logical and defensible, and I agree with them that it is, given their starting principles. So it’s not un-Christian to ordain women, or is only un-Christian to the extent trying to live outside the Church is.

They’re on the same side of the chasm with the innovators, even if a shallower chasm separates them from them. I suspect that’s why so many of our still-Anglican friends are so strongly against women’s ordination, bec. it diverts attention from the fundamental difference. If they keep pointing to the chasm between them and the innovators as the border of their land, they don’t have to admit that the chasm between them and us is the real border. I don’t think that’s uncharitable, bec. it reflects my close observation of some beloved conservative Protestant friends.