I can't get excited about whatever is going on down in Canterbury. Its not my fight. If the Anglicans split, they split. Splitting and factionalism is built into Protestantism. Was from the start. When you reject central authority (The Pope and the Magisterium) for Biblical authority (Sola Scriptura - scripture alone) then you open up a can of worms. Without any guidance who is to say what this or that passage really means? So you end up, as Lwis Carrol said: it means exactly whatever I say it means.
Somone once observed, "In the sixteenth century the Protestants threw out the authority of the Pope in favor of the authority of the Bible. In the twentieth century their own liberal scholars undermined the authority of the Bible. Now they have nothing left but their own opinions."
This is exactly what we are witnessing in Canterbury at the moment. Expressions of personal opinion sometimes hiding behind this theological arguement or another.
Purely from a Utiltarian point of view: in 1993 the Synod voted to Ordain women. But in order to ensure Unity a very bad fudge (Compromise) was made. That women could become Priests but not Bishops; not immediately anyway. Perhaps some of those who accepted and voted for the fudge really believed that women priests would never catch on. Who knows? But immediately they Oked women priests then they also Oked women Bishops. It makes no logical sense not to have also women Bishops if you have women Priests.
Biblically of course it cannot be done. Jesus did not commission women to go to the four corners of the world and "Baptise in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." And bear this in mind also. That alone of all the nations in the Middle East at that time, the Jews alone did not allow women priestesses. And we, the Gentiles are the adopted children of the Jewish God and therefore are the Elected of God.
Comments